Thursday, September 06, 2018

California bail

They claim that using algorithms to estimate flight risk and not demanding bail is more equitable, since the poor have a harder time making bail. The latter is true, but I wonder about the consequences.

First, I am not persuaded that an algorithm will be less biased(*) than the average of judges.

Second, there is likely to be a difference between the sets of "flight risk" and "flight risk when you have a sizeable chunk of money at stake." The second set is going to be a lot smaller--that's the whole point of bail, if you do it right.

I figure the algorithms-that-be will screw up a lot, and in addition will deny release to a larger number of people than before. If you try to force the before and after rates of bail-denial to match, the system will have a larger number of no-shows.

Perhaps that's a feature and not a bug? More no-shows means fewer convictions which means less stress on an over-full prison system.

(*) Google "fixed" its algorithm by removing gorillas from the training set.

1 comment:

Tom Grey said...

No show is also illegal -- so if they're caught again, much more likely to be denied bail and be easily convicted.

Kind of a Trust Test -- if they show up for hearing, they're probably good enough to get a suspended sentence after some plea bargaining.

If they don't show up, they've self-selected for next time being caught they Go To Jail, pretty much straight to jail.

I'm not sure this is the intent, but it actually doesn't sound so bad, to me.