Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 19 - The Use of Algorithms in Criminal Adjudication

  • from Part IV - Criminal Law, Tort Issues, and Algorithms
  • Edited by Woodrow Barfield, University of Washington
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms
    Published online:
    19 October 2020
    Print publication:
    05 November 2020, pp 407-431

  • Summary

    The use of “algorithms” in criminal investigation, adjudication, and punishment is not a new phenomenon. That is, to the extent that “algorithms” are simply sets of rules capable of being executed by a machine, the criminal justice system has long incorporated their use. For example, the US sentencing guidelines are so mechanistic that they were, at least for a time, literally calculated by software. Likewise, the New York Police Department’s erstwhile “stop and frisk” program was a mechanistic means of deciding whom to search and when. And so-called “per se” impaired driving laws have for nearly half a century mechanistically imposed criminal liability based on a machine’s determination that a person’s blood-alcohol level is over a certain threshold, without a jury determination of dangerous impairment.