CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 17Criminal Justice and Corrections AnalysisEthics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in Law

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Public’s views of risk assessment algorithms and pretrial decision making

Open access
Scurich, Nicholas, Krauss, Daniel A.·2020·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
DOI 10.1037/law0000219
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Risk assessment algorithms are increasingly–and controversially–being used to inform whether criminal defendants are released or held in custody prior to their adjudications. A representative sample of Californians (n=420)–the most recent state to consider eliminating cash bail and adopting an algorithmic approach to pretrial detention–was used to assess public knowledge and general support for the new law. The sample evidenced limited awareness of bail reform, was mixed in support of change to the current system, and believed that an algorithm would augment rather than decrease racial and socioeconomic disparities. In terms of actually implementing a risk assessment algorithm for the purpose of pretrial decision making, it is ultimately a decision maker who must apply a decision threshold and determine whether a given risk level is sufficient to occasion a particular course of action (e.g., deny pretrial release). The sample was also queried about their pretrial decision thresholds. The average respondent’s decision threshold for “low risk” (or pretrial release) was 33%, indicating a 33% or less likelihood of failing to reappear or committing a new crime was tolerable, and 60% for “high risk” (or confinement), indicating a likelihood of 60% or greater of failing to reappear or committing a new crime was acceptable to deny a defendant release. Incorporating the public’s values into the decision-making process is likely to promote the legitimacy of the use of risk assessment a…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/law0000219

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 33 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Scurich, N., & Krauss, D. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Claremont McKenna College (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2020-02
Volume
26
Issue
1
Pages
1-9
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
DOI
10.1037/law0000219
OpenAlex
W2993938946
Cited by
17
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Law › Artificial Intelligence in Law
Keywords
risk assessment algorithm, pretrial detention, bail reform, public opinion, public support, racial disparities, socioeconomic disparities, decision threshold, pretrial release, algorithmic decision-making, legitimacy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review