 |
| Image: ALAMY |
On January 1st of 2017, New Jersey implemented the use of an algorithm to determine whether or not a defendant would be released until trial or detained. Previously, defendants would have the option to bail out of jail by paying an amount that corresponded to their crimes. Now, in New Jersey, if the result of the algorithm decides that a defendant is dangerous or likely to flee, they are detained without bail. If defendants are considered neither, they are released without bail, but monitored.
There has been a significant decline of 36% from September of 2015 to September of 2017 as defendants who have been unable to pay bail, but are not a danger to the public, are released until trial. However, critics claim that this new system allows for dangerous criminals to be back on the streets.
Ideally, this change would allow people who have committed petty crimes to walk free, but keep defendants who have committed more serious crimes behind bars -- they wouldn't be able to walk away, even if they paid bail.
Ideally, this change would allow people who have committed petty crimes to walk free, but keep defendants who have committed more serious crimes behind bars -- they wouldn't be able to walk away, even if they paid bail.
Questions:
1. What are your thoughts?
2. Do you think this a more effective pre-trial system than the previous one? Why or why not?
3. Controversy arises because this is an unfunded mandate imposed on county jails, and people don't want their tax money to keep the jails running. Do you think the benefits outweigh the costs?
3. Controversy arises because this is an unfunded mandate imposed on county jails, and people don't want their tax money to keep the jails running. Do you think the benefits outweigh the costs?
7 comments:
It's an interesting method to say the least, with this algorithm people don't have to pay such expensive bails in order walk and wait. Looking at it from the expenses point of view, I'd say it's a dream come true. However, I'd prefer that bail still be set in place as some criminals are good at getting away no matter how "monitered" they are. It's true that some petty crimes do not deserve the 75,000 dollar bail, but then there are crimes that deserve higher amounts.
I think that this is a good thing. An algorithm is capable of making solely rational decisions without having the emotional ties to a case that might sway a judge's decision to be incorrect. Also, due to the programmable nature of an algorithm, we can easily ensure that the computer will follow the judicial guidelines set up in the law, such as not imposing excessive bails.
I think this new method is quite interesting. (Again, I don't actually know if this is how the courts really do it) but, I've seen in TV programs like SVU or other justice shows, that the opposition protest bail. Bail is set at x amount, but the prosecutor (?) is allowed to present an argument to the judge that the defendant is likely to flee or a flight risk or whatever other thing. Anyways, I am uncertain if this new algorithm allows the criminal to be released on bail free of charge, or if they just decide that the criminal is allowed to be released. The criminal justice system is a tricky thing because people often find ways of not getting jailed or whatnot. Eventually, if the rest of the states decide to adopt this program, people will be able to cheat the system somehow. But all in all. i think this program is great if it allows people to pay a lower bail amount or none at all if it is a petty crime, but definitely not for criminals with higher degrees of charges.
I also think that this method is interesting, and I think that this would be a good method to use. They can decide whether if it's a good Idea to let the guy go, and only let them go if they are not dangerous. People who are sometimes innocent cannot afford bail, making it unfair for them, also people who are dangerous can sometimes make bail, which is not a good idea at all. So this algorithm Idea is good
I am a bit skeptical about the accuracy of this algorithm, and how they created this algorithm to begin with. As with any algorithm, there are many things it will not be able to take into account. However, I do see Harrison's point that an algorithm take away any emotional aspects to make a logical decision. If it is adopted by all states then there will be uniformity and not much discrepancy from state to state, which would be a huge plus. I do think that the benefits outweigh the costs, if the algorithm works as it does in theory. I do understand that people would much rather spend their money elsewhere, but this would allow the system to become more fair and hopefully would not be a danger to the people.
I find this method very interesting. I do agree with Harrison in how the algorithm will make more rational decisions and ensure that the judicial guidelines are followed. However, I don't think this can be used in every scenario, as there must be some special cases where this algorithm would not work or would give an incorrect answer. Because of this, I think it is dangerous to turn solely to a computer based algorithm as some people, although relatively few, can be screwed over. Additionally, there may be a way for some people to cheat this system, as Andrea says. Despite this though, I definitely do see all the pros that this has to offer such as a more uniform, fair, and quick system to determine bail.
I think there a lot of other factors that need to be considered when implementing this algorithm. The article says that criminals that are released are closely monitored, but how closely monitored? What if a criminal repeats their actions but knows that if there's a way out, they'll just keep committing those crimes? As the Ras Baraka, Newark's mayor, says in the article, "People caught who’ve done seven, eight, nine burglaries, it doesn’t make sense to let them out so they can do 11, 12, 13 more." This also makes me ask, what about criminals with mental illness, how will they be taken into account of the algorithm? And how will they be able to ensure that criminals won't cheat the system? I do agree that reforms such as these make it easier for poorer people accused of small crimes to go on with their lives, but there are just so many other things that need to be taken into consideration as well.
Post a Comment