H. John Heinz III College, Carnegie Mellon University , Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Big Data. 2017 Jun;5(2):153-163. doi: 10.1089/big.2016.0047.
Recidivism prediction instruments (RPIs) provide decision-makers with an assessment of the likelihood that a criminal defendant will reoffend at a future point in time. Although such instruments are gaining increasing popularity across the country, their use is attracting tremendous controversy. Much of the controversy concerns potential discriminatory bias in the risk assessments that are produced. This article discusses several fairness criteria that have recently been applied to assess the fairness of RPIs. We demonstrate that the criteria cannot all be simultaneously satisfied when recidivism prevalence differs across groups. We then show how disparate impact can arise when an RPI fails to satisfy the criterion of error rate balance.
累犯预测工具 (RPIs) 为决策者提供了对犯罪被告在未来某个时间点再次犯罪的可能性的评估。尽管此类工具在全国范围内越来越受欢迎,但它们的使用也引起了巨大的争议。争议的很大一部分涉及风险评估中可能存在的歧视性偏见。本文讨论了最近用于评估 RPIs 公平性的几个公平标准。我们表明,当累犯率在不同群体之间存在差异时,这些标准不可能同时得到满足。然后,我们展示了当 RPI 未能满足错误率平衡标准时,如何会出现不同影响。