CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Ethics and Social Impacts of AIArtificial Intelligence in LawCriminal Justice and Corrections Analysis

Predictive Algorithms in Justice Systems and the Limits of Tech-Reformism

Open access
Ugwudike, Pam·2022·International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy
DOI 10.5204/ijcjsd.2189
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Data-driven digital technologies are playing a pivotal role in shaping the global landscape of criminal justice across several jurisdictions. Predictive algorithms, in particular, now inform decision making at almost all levels of the criminal justice process. As the algorithms continue to proliferate, a fast-growing multidisciplinary scholarship has emerged to challenge their logics and highlight their capacity to perpetuate historical biases. Drawing on insights distilled from critical algorithm studies and the digital sociology scholarship, this paper outlines the limits of prevailing tech-reformist remedies. The paper also builds on the interstices between the two scholarships to make a case for a broader structural framework for understanding the conduits of algorithmic bias.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5204/ijcjsd.2189

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Ajunwa I, Friedler S, Scheidegger C and Venkatasubramanian S (2016) Hiring by algorithm: Predicting and preventing disparate impact. http://sorelle.friedler.net/papers/SSRN-id2746078.pdf
  2. Allan A, Parry CL, Ferrante A, Gillies C, Griffiths CS, Morgan F, Spiranovic C, Smallbone S, Tubex H and Wong SCP (2019) Assessing the risk of Australian Indigenous sexual offenders reoffending: A review of the research literature and court decisions. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 26(2): 274-294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2018.1504242 · DOI
  3. Benjamin R (2019) Race after technology: Abolitionist tools for the new Jim code. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  4. Bennett Moses L and Chan J (2016) Algorithmic prediction in policing: Assumptions, evaluation, and accountability. Policing and Society 28(7): 806-822. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1253695 · DOI
  5. Berk RA and Bleich J (2013) Statistical procedures for forecasting criminal behaviour: A comparative assessment. Criminology & Public Policy 12(3): 513-544. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12047 · DOI
  6. Bonta J and Andrews DA (2017) The psychology of criminal conduct. 6th ed. New York: Routledge.
  7. Bowker GC (2005) Memory Practices in the Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  8. Brennan T and Oliver WL (2013) The emergence of machine learning techniques in criminology: Implications of complexity in our data and in research questions. Criminology & Public Policy 12(3): 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12055 · DOI
  9. Broussard M (2018) Artificial unintelligence: How computers misunderstand the world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  10. Buolamwini J and Gebru T (2018) Gender shades: Intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. In Friedler SA and Wilson C (eds) Conferences on Fairness, Accountability and Transparency, vol 81 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research: 77-91. http://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a.html
  11. Cardoso T (2020) Bias behind bars: A globe investigation finds a prison system stacked against Black and Indigenous inmates. The Globe and Mail, 24 October. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article- investigation-racial-bias-in-canadian-prison-risk-assessments/ Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (2019) The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation's approach to the governance of data-driven technology. Gov.UK, 19 July. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the- centre-for-data-ethics-and-innovations-approach-to-the-governance-of-data-driven-technology/the-centre-for- data-ethics-and-innovations-approach-to-the-governance-of-data-driven-technology Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation (2020) Review into bias in algorithmic decision-making. Gov.UK, 27 November. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cdei-publishes-review-into-bias-in-algorithmic- decision-making/main-report-cdei-review-into-bias-in-algorithmic-decision-making
  12. Costanza-Chock S (2020) Design justice: Community-led practices to build the worlds we need. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  13. Eaglin JM (2017) Constructing recidivism risk. Emory Law Journal 67(1): 59-122. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/elj/vol67/iss1/2/
  14. Gitlleman L and Jackson V (2013) Introduction. In Gitlleman L (ed.) "Raw data" is an oxymoron: 1-14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  15. Gower M, Spiranovic C, Morgan F and Saunders J (2020) The predictive validity of risk assessment tools used in Australia for female offenders: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior 53: 101428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2020.101428 · DOI
  16. Hamilton M (2015) Risk-needs assessment: Constitutional and ethical challenges. American Criminal Law Review 52(2): 231-291. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2506397 · DOI
  17. Hunt P, Saunders J, and Hollywood JS (2014) Evaluation of the Shreveport Predictive Policing Experiment. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.
  18. Kaufmann M, Egbert S and Leese M (2019) Predictive Policing and the Politics of Patterns. British Journal of Criminology. 59, 674-692. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azy060 · DOI
  19. Lowder EM, Morrison MM, Kroner DG and Desmarais SL (2019) Racial bias and LSI-R assessments in probation sentencing and outcomes. Criminal Justice and Behaviour 46(2): 210-233. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/0093854818789977 · DOI
  20. Maurutto P and Hannah-Moffat K (2006) Assembling risk and the restructuring of penal control. British Journal of Criminology 46(3): 438-454. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23639357
  21. Noble S (2018) Algorithms of Oppression. New York, New York University Press.
  22. Parent M, Roy A, Gagnon C, Lemaire N, Deslauriers-Varin N, Falk TH and Tremblay S (2020) Designing an explainable predictive policing model to forecast police workforce distribution in cities. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 62(4): 52-76. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2020-0011 · DOI
  23. Pasquale F (2015) The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  24. PredPol (2021) Geolitica: A new name, a new focus. PredPol, 2 March. https://blog.predpol.com/geolitica-a-new- name-a-new-focus Price M (2019) Hospital 'risk scores' prioritize white patients. Science, 24 October. https://www.science.org/news/2019/10/hospital-risk-scores-prioritize-white-patients
  25. Richardson R, Schultz JM and Crawford K (2019) Dirty data, bad predictions: How civil rights violations impact police data, predictive policing systems, and justice. New York University Law Review 94: 192-233.
  26. Shepherd SM, Adams Y, McEntyre E and Walker R (2014) Violence risk assessment in Australian Aboriginal offender populations: A review of the literature. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 20(3): 281-293. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1037/law0000017 · DOI
  27. Skeem J and Lowenkamp C (2020) Using algorithms to address trade-offs inherent in predicting recidivism. Behavioral Sciences & The Law 38(3): 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2465 IJCJSD 11(1) 2022 · DOI
  28. Ugwudike P (2020) Digital prediction technologies in the justice system: The implications of a 'race-neutral' agenda. Theoretical Criminology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619896006 · DOI
  29. Ugwudike P (2021) AI audits for assessing design logics and building ethical systems: The case of predictive policing algorithms. AI and Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-021-00117-5 · DOI
  30. Ugwudike P and Fleming J (2021) Artificial Intelligence, digital capital, and epistemic domination on Twitter: A study of families affected by imprisonment. Punishment and Society. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/14624745211014391 · DOI
  31. van Dijk J (2005) The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
  32. van Eijk G (2017) Socioeconomic marginality in sentencing: The built-in bias in risk assessment tools and the reproduction of social inequality. Punishment & Society 19(4): 463-481. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1462474516666282 · DOI
  33. Završnik A (2020) Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. ERA Forum 20: 567-583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-020-00602-0 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Zeng J, Ustun B and Rudin C (2015) Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07810 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ugwudike, P.
ORCID
Ugwudike, Pam
Venue
International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy
Publisher
Queensland University of Technology
Published
2022-03-01
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
85-99
ISSN
  • 2202-7998 (ISSN-L)
  • 2202-8005
DOI
10.5204/ijcjsd.2189
OpenAlex
W4214595003
Cited by
29
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
FWCI
5.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • International Journal for Crime Justice and Social Democracy (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Artificial Intelligence in Law
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
Keywords
predictive algorithms, criminal justice, algorithmic bias, critical algorithm studies, digital sociology, data-driven decision making, structural bias, algorithmic governance

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