April 21st, 2020

Podcast Homework:

Do you think someone's past predicts their future actions? Has this been true in your own life?

Someone’s past can definitely give insight about what their future actions may be, because we learn from our past experiences and act a certain way now because of that. However, in no way does it mean that people should be judged based on something from their past. People do change and it is important to remember that their past does not necessarily dictate their future.

Do you think someone's actions can be predicted based on statistics from their peer group? How does this apply in your own life?

Someone can definitely be influenced by their peer group and you can use these possible influences to predict their actions, however, there is no guarantee that someone’s actions are a result of influence from their peers.

What do you think is statistical vs. individualized evidence? 

I think statistical evidence is evidence made up of numbers/statistics that would prove why someone is likely guilty. I think individualized evidence is evidence that makes something normally true.

What do you think probable cause is? Do you think it can be quantified?

I think probable cause is reasonable grounds for a police officer arresting someone or issuing a warrant. I think it really depends on the situation when thinking about whether it can be quantified

What percentage of people who are arrested end up going to trial?

3%

What percentage of people who are incarcerated are actually awaiting a trial (i.e. in pre-trial sentencing)?

97% of cases do not go to trial and are resolved another way

What is the difference between a risk score and probability?

A risk score is a number that shows the severity and chance of a risk whereas probability means the likelihood of something happening.

People who are considered high risk for being rearrested, — how high risk are they actually based on the algorithms used in states like New Jersey?

Based on the algorithms in states like New Jersey, only 8% of people labelled as high risk are rearrested within 6 months. This proves that perhaps they aren’t actually that high risk, however it all depends on how that term is defined.

What is the paradox between using algorithms for pre-trial sentencing vs. during trials themselves.

Using algorithms for pre-trial sentencing is difficult because it is all based on statistical evidence. For instance, when arresting someone, if the facial recognition only matches 50%, is this enough to arrest them? During trial, will the facial recognition algorithm that only found a 50% match be as reliable as an eyewitness testimony?

What surprised you about this podcast episode? Did you know algorithms were being used to sentence people _before_ a trial? I was surprised about the importance of algorithms and how they are used in the trial system. I did not know that they are used to sentence people before a trial, and I find that very interesting because there are so many pros and cons when it comes to algorithms vs. humans.

What is worse/better – humans or algorithms?

I think there are pros and cons for both. Algorithms may be less biased and may be able to decrease the number of innocent people being sentenced based on racial prejudice. However, they lack the moral compass humans naturally possess.

What do you think it would like like to presume innocence?

I don’t completely understand the question but I think presuming innocence means that we presume that someone is innocent until they are proven to be guilty.

Do you think someone's past predicts their future actions?

I definitely think if someone does something extreme enough to be arrested, it makes sense to be worried about them doing a similar thing again. However, depending on the severity and frequency of their actions, it cannot be confirmed that they will do it again.

Do you think someone's actions can be predicted based on statistics from their peer group?

They may be more likely to do certain things because of statistics of their peer group, however we are unable to say that someone definitely made a decision based on influences from their peer groups or that they would be more likely to do so.