Using artificial intelligence to prevent crime: implications for due process and criminal justice
AI & SOCIETY - Trang 1-10 - 2022
Tóm tắt
Traditional notions of crime control often position the police against an individual, known or not yet known, who is responsible for the commission of a crime. However, with increasingly sophisticated technology, policing increasingly prioritizes the prevention of crime, making it necessary to ascertain who, or what class of persons, may be the next likely criminal before a crime can be committed, termed predictive policing. This causes a shift from individualized suspicion toward predictive profiling that may sway the expectations of a police patrol. Classically, where a patrol officer forms reasonable suspicion prior to a stop, it is based upon his/her analysis of the situation taken as a whole in context. However, where a predictive profile is employed, information available to the officer accordingly adjusts his/her perception of context and affects the application of the reasonable suspicion standard. This article addresses the way in which new approaches to forming reasonable suspicion affect the due process protection of individuals’ fundamental rights. It argues that while an officer still operates with good faith discretion, using predictive profiling causes reasonable suspicion to be based on an augmented understanding of reality and as a result, due process guarantees are weakened. The rights to non-discrimination and the presumption of innocence are assessed and argued as illustrative of this weakening and shift in policing standards. The article ultimately argues that while predictive policing cannot be categorically labeled as inconsistent with criminal justice, changes as seemingly moderate as the manner in which discretion operates have larger effects on individuals’ rights.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Barrett L (2017) Reasonably suspicious algorithms: predictive policing at the United States Border. N.Y.U. Review of Law & Social Change 41, no. 3. https://socialchangenyu.com/review/reasonably-suspicious-algorithms-predictive-policing-at-the-united-states-border/
Bayamlıoğlu E, Leenes R (2018) The ‘rule of law’ implications of data-driven decision-making: a techno-regulatory perspective. Law Innov Technol 10(2):295–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2018.1527475
Brennan-Marquez K (2017) ‘Plausible Cause’: explanatory standards in the age of powerful machines. Vanderbilt Law Rev 70(4):1249–1301
Campbell L (2013) Criminal labels, the European convention on human rights and the presumption of innocence. Modern Law Rev 76(4):681–707
Clark S (2014) The Juror, the citizen, and the human being: the presumption of innocence and the burden of judgment. Crim Law Philos 8:421–429
Coomber R, Donnermeyer J, McElrath K, Scott J (2014) Key concepts in crime and society. Sage, Key Concepts
Crawford A, Evans K (2007) Crime prevention and community safety. In: The Oxford handbook of criminology, vol 5. Oxford University Press
Cyr K (2015) The police officer’s plight: the intersection of policing and the law. Alberta Law Rev 52(4):889–926
DeAngelis P (2014) Racial profiling and the presumption of innocence. Netherlands J Legal Philos 43(1):43–58
European Agency for Fundamental Rights (2018) Preventing unlawful profiling today and in the future: a guide. https://doi.org/10.2811/73473
Ferguson A (2011) Crime mapping and the fourth amendment: redrawing ‘high-crime areas.’ Hastings Law J 63(1):179–232
Ferguson (2012) Predictive policing and reasonable suspicion. Emory Law J 62(259):261–325
Ferguson AG (2015) Big data and predictive reasonable suspicion. Univ Pa Law Rev 163(2):327–410
Ferguson (2017) Policing predictive policing. Washington Univ Law Rev 94(5):1109–1189
Gless S (2021) Automated suspicion - and evidence?. In: Presented at the Facial recognition vs. Criminal Justice, Council of Europe AI & Law Webinar Series. https://www.coe.int/en/web/artificial-intelligence/-/ai-law-webinar-9-facial-recognition-vs-criminal-justice?fbclid=IwAR3Y-uYro9TEcar-qr1sJAMJUaThTv9Izhs5L9oNSitOIVaFJuR4Z5sE5Jw
Goff P, Kahn KB (2012) Racial bias in policing: why we know less than we should. Soc Issues Policy Rev 6(1):177–210
Hadjimatheou K (2017) Surveillance technologies, wrongful conviction, and the presumption of innocence. Philos Technol 30(1):39–54
Harcourt B (2015) Risk as a proxy for race: the dangers of risk assessment. Federal Sentencing Report 27(4):237–243
Harmon R (2012) The problem of policing. Mich Law Rev 110(5):761–817
Innes (2003) Understanding social control: deviance, crime and social order. McGraw-Hill Education, Berlin
Innes M (2010) The art, craft, and science of policing. In: The Oxford handbook of empirical legal research. Oxford Handbook. Oxford University Press
Joh E (2014) Policing by numbers: big data and the fourth amendment. Washington Law Rev 89:35–68
Jones T (2007) Governing security: pluralization, privatization, and polarization in crime control and policing. In: The Oxford handbook of criminology, 5th edn. Oxford Handbook. Oxford University Press
Lacey N, Wells C, Quick O (2003) Reconstructing criminal law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press
Lum K, Isaac W (2016) To predict and serve? Significance 13(5):14–19
Lum C, Koper C (2017) Evidence-based policing, translating research into practice. Oxford University Press
Lyon D (2002) Surveillance as social sorting, privacy, risk and digital discrimination
Maguire M (2008) Criminal investigation and crime control. In handbook of policing. Routledge
Mendola M (2016) One step further in the ‘surveillance society’: the case of predictive policing. Leiden University Tech and Law Center
Newburn (2008) Police powers. In: Handbook of policing. Routledge, Berlin
Newburn T (2008) Crime reduction and community safety. In: Handbook of policing. Routledge
Newburn T, Reiner R (2007) Policing and the police. In: The Oxford handbook of criminology, 5th edn. Oxford Handbook. Oxford University Press
Nutter P (2019) Machine learning evidence: admissibility and weight. J Constitut Law 21(3):919–958
Osoba OA and William W IV (2017) An intelligence in our image: the risks of bias and errors in artificial intelligence. Santa Monica, UNITED STATES: RAND Corporation, The, 2017. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unilu-ebooks/detail.action?docID=4848967
Packer H (1964) Two models of the criminal process. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 113(1):1
Perry WL, McInnis B, Price CC, Smith SC, Hollywood JS and Perry WL (2013) Predictive policing: the role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Santa Monica, UNITED STATES: RAND Corporation, The, 2013. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unilu-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1437438
Picard S, Watkins M, Rempel M and Kerodal A (2019) Beyond the Algorithm; pretrial reform, risk assessment, and racial fairness. New York: Center for Court Innovation https://www.courtinnovation.org/publications/beyond-algorithm.
Re R, Solow-Niederman A (2019) Developing artificially intelligent justice. Stanford Tech Law Rev 22(2):242–289
Rich M (2016) Machine learning, automated suspicion algorithms, and the fourth amendment. Univ Pa Law Rev 164:871–929
Sieber U (2018) Alternative systems of crime control; national, transnational, and international dimensions. Reports on research in criminal law, S 161. Dunker & Humblot, Berlin
Simmons R (2016) Quantifying criminal procedure: how to unlock the potential of big data in our criminal justice system. Michigan State Law Rev. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2816006
Stern S (2013) Constructive knowledge, probable cause, and administrative decision making. Notre Dame Law Rev 82(3):1085–1142
Stewart H (2014) The right to be presumed innocent. Crim Law Philos 8:407–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-013-9233-x
Tilley N (2008) Modern approaches to policing: community, problem-oriented and intelligence-led. In: Handbook of policing. Routledge
Welsh B, Farrington D (2012) The Oxford handbook of crime prevention. Oxford University Press
Zavrsnik A (2020) Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. ERA Forum 20:567–583