Hacker News Reader

Comment by ewjordan | Hacker News Reader

This is actually a bit more interesting than merely providing judges with the costs. FTFA:

The concept is simple: fill in an offender’s conviction code, criminal history and other background, and the program spits out a range of recommended sentences, new statistical information about the likelihood that Missouri criminals with similar profiles (and the sentences they received) might commit more crimes, and the various options’ price tags.

The fact that the system actually gives info about likelihood of committing future crimes is pretty neat, if it's done well. This is one of the first practical moves I've seen towards data-driven sentencing, and if it spreads and grows, it could be the start of a major tidal shift in our entire philosophy of criminal justice.

View on HN

Are you suggesting that people should be judged on the probability that they might commit more crimes in the future, that is, for crimes they have not committed?

They already are, by the ultimate opaque system, semi-random collections of human brains. Recall all the senses of the word "judge", after all; judges certainly take that into account as part of their human decisions.

This is more transparent and more subject to validation and verification. Are you sure you think this is actually a step backward?

I did not say so, but I do think this is a road to hell, paved with good intentions. 'Minority Report' is on that road.

Judges may sometimes or often be biased, but, institutionalizing that is IMO a step too far.

Having said that, I think there is gray area; for example, I do not believe in the British "if it's murder, it must be life in prison", and I do think that sentences like "follow this anger management course or go to prison for three months" can be based on statistics of repeat offending.

Judges' sentencing criteria are not opaque, because they're set out in the opinion and subject to appeal. Sentencing guidelines have been a mixed bag at the federal level as far as quality of results goes, and their original mandatory nature were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court in 2005, largely due to sustained opposition by Justice Scalia.

Abso-f@#$ing-lutely.

If there's zero probability that someone's going to commit a crime again, then any sentence that they receive is purely punitive, and it's there for only two reasons, 1) to satisfy our emotional need to punish someone that did something wrong, and 2) to signal to other potential offenders that if they do the same thing, they won't get away with it.

But if someone is very likely to commit more crimes, locking them up adds 3) they will not be able to commit these crimes while they're incarcerated.

The relative values of 1), 2), and 3) shift sharply depending on the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood of future crimes, and the value that we as a society gain (or lose) by locking someone up depends critically on how they add up.

If two men commit exactly the same murder (physically speaking), but one of them does it because he caught his wife in bed with another man and the other does it because she didn't cook the steak rare enough that night, I would be perfectly fine with the first man getting a lighter sentence: it took a very extreme situation for him to resort to murder (though it's still not justified by any means, don't get me wrong, and he should still be punished based on 1) and 2)), whereas the second guy is pretty clearly a loose cannon, and is likely to pose a far greater threat to everyone if he's allowed back on the streets.

I think what he's just saying is this:

Punishment is typically expensive; rehabilitation is typically cheap and more effective in reducing future crimes after the person is out in society again.

Punishment, therefore, should be reserved for the more heinous crimes where rehabilitation isn't likely to work, and rehabilitation should be used for less-heinous crimes where rehabilitation is likely to succeed.

Are you suggesting that a criminal with a strong history of reoffending - eg, a serial rapist - should not have that taken into account during sentencing? A large part of the reason why we jail people is to reduce their risk to society.

I guess the problem is how far the statistical analysis should be taken.

Should someone who has a history of violence that commits his first murder get a longer sentence? I imagine the consensus would be yes. But what about someone who has a history of non violent crime? Antisocial behaviour?

Should it be taken into account if you're a loner? What about your name - it's possible that's statistically significant (even if you're already starting with people who have already murdered)?

What about race?

So it pretty quickly turns into something I disagree with, probably long before the statistical significance wears off. After a few minutes of reflection, I can't figure out exactly where I draw the line.

No, that someone CONVICTED should be sentenced based on the data.

Yes—not on a person-by-person basis, but on a crime-by-crime basis. This is perfectly in accordance with judging on the intensity of or the harm caused by a crime.

I can see it coming...

Judge: The program says that the defendant should be put in jail for 3 years.

Defense Lawyer: My expert witness says that the program is buggy.

Prosecutor: Can you prove that?

Defense Lawyer: I would, if the program were open-source...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com