Interventions over Predictions: Reframing the Ethical Debate for
  Actuarial Risk Assessment
  Actuarial risk assessments might be unduly perceived as a neutral way to
counteract implicit bias and increase the fairness of decisions made at almost
every juncture of the criminal justice system, from pretrial release to
sentencing, parole and probation. In recent times these assessments have come
under increased scrutiny, as critics claim that the statistical techniques
underlying them might reproduce existing patterns of discrimination and
historical biases that are reflected in the data. Much of this debate is
centered around competing notions of fairness and predictive accuracy, resting
on the contested use of variables that act as "proxies" for characteristics
legally protected against discrimination, such as race and gender. We argue
that a core ethical debate surrounding the use of regression in risk
assessments is not simply one of bias or accuracy. Rather, it's one of purpose.
If machine learning is operationalized merely in the service of predicting
individual future crime, then it becomes difficult to break cycles of
criminalization that are driven by the iatrogenic effects of the criminal
justice system itself. We posit that machine learning should not be used for
prediction, but rather to surface covariates that are fed into a causal model
for understanding the social, structural and psychological drivers of crime. We
propose an alternative application of machine learning and causal inference
away from predicting risk scores to risk mitigation.
