Fairness in Criminal Justice Risk Assessments: The State of the Art

Abstract

Objectives: Discussions of fairness in criminal justice risk assessments typically lack conceptual precision. Rhetoric too often substitutes for careful analysis. In this paper, we seek to clarify the tradeoffs between different kinds of fairness and between fairness and accuracy. Methods: We draw on the existing literatures in criminology, computer science and statistics to provide an integrated examination of fairness and accuracy in criminal justice risk assessments. We also provide an empirical illustration using data from arraignments. Results: We show that there are at least six kinds of fairness, some of which are incompatible with one another and with accuracy. Conclusions: Except in trivial cases, it is impossible to maximize accuracy and fairness at the same time, and impossible simultaneously to satisfy all kinds of fairness. In practice, a major complication is different base rates across different legally protected groups. There is a need to consider challenging tradeoffs.

Under a Revise and Resubmit

References in corpus (2)

• Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning
• ZFIRE: The Kinematics of Star-Forming Galaxies as a Function of Environment at z~2

Cited by in corpus (11)

• Counterfactual Fairness
• Avoiding Discrimination through Causal Reasoning
• A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification
• Fairness in Algorithmic Decision Making: An Excursion Through the Lens of Causality
• Online Learning with an Unknown Fairness Metric
• Fair Regression: Quantitative Definitions and Reduction-based Algorithms
• Fair Regression for Health Care Spending
• Fair Coresets and Streaming Algorithms for Fair k-Means Clustering
• Fairer and more accurate, but for whom?
• ORES: Lowering Barriers with Participatory Machine Learning in Wikipedia
• Fairness for Whom? Critically reframing fairness with Nash Welfare Product