If personal bias plays a part in increasing the amount of arrests and prosecutions for a certain subpopulation, then by definition reducing the domain of law enforcement reduces the impact of personal bias. Prohibition of substances, gambling and prostitution,the overcriminilization of our society, "zero-tolerance" policies, and increasing regulatory oversight of every facet of our lives have had the net result that the personal biases of government officials have become insufferable to those most affected by it. I just hope that the conversation shifts away from "Who should be in charge?" to "Should we have so many people in charge?".
Isn't "unconscious bias" merely humans using their instinctual bayesian reasoning systems as priors? I don't see how it's possible to eliminate that, nor that the outcome would necessarily be desirable. Educating people that there are certain biases they shouldn't bring into the courtroom is a proposed solution, but I don't think it gets us anywhere closer to the platonic ideal of objective justice. It just mucks with the bayesian priors in a way that favored activists desire.
I've pretty much never personally seen a violent/property crime committed by someone else. Don't think I've ever been witness to a mugging, or a store getting held up, or a car getting stolen.
What I have seen is media reports and then, even more vividly than news reports, movie and TV portrayals, of such and other crimes.
So now, any pattern-matching I do on "this is the type of person who does that type of thing" isn't based on my own experiences, it's based on the ones people have shown me. So maybe there were things influenced what got reported on, or what types of people get written into stories in what roles—aka my bias would be based on other people's bias which would be based on... as well as questions about what types of crimes get reported on/turned into movies, etc. Violence sells, etc. This is problematic for the idea that "bias" is just the brain doing reliable and sophisticated analysis of trustworthy data.
> Isn't "unconscious bias" merely humans using their instinctual bayesian reasoning systems as priors?
No, it's just tribal instincts against the 'other'; no prior experience is necessary; people will kill people from groups they have no expereince with because they are different. Consider homophobia: Is it because the attackers have experience being assaulted by gays? What about violence against women? (In fact, I think reality may be reverse of your theory: The same people are victimized over and over; the weak are abused by the powerful.)
The solution is conceptually simple: Teach people to see the other groups as 'one of us'. It does happen over the long run; I read research that within a few generations, for example, new immigrant groups mostly inter-marry with others (arguably blacks became the equivalent of new immigrants when they finally had full legal rights in the 1960s, and racial intermarriage now is growing quickly). Consider Protestants and Catholics, who used to riot against each other. 55 years ago, a Catholic winning the Presidency was a big deal. Now nobody cares or notices; a Catholic marrying a Protestant is completely unremarkable.
Rather than arbitrarily causing generations of suffering, we can learn to do better now.
Unconscious racial bias comes up a lot in these issues. Yet I am at a loss to see a mechanism by which we could even begin to remedy it. What steps could proposed programs take?
If we accept that unconscious bias is a fact, the only real solution is to eliminate the possibility for unconscious bias.
To fully do this, you'd need an environment in which all parties are mutually identity-blind. Some kind of virtual courtroom where everyone assumes a "neutral" avatar and speaks through a synthesized voice (again, "neutral") might approximate this.
How would you get there from here? First, you'd need a prototype and substantial basic research - not within the criminal justice system - supporting up the hypothesis that this reduces bias. Next, you'd need to beef up security, accessibility, etc. before slogging through the procurement process. You'd then test it on a small handful of actual cases, thereby gathering data to support a wider rollout.
In the meantime: not sure. The very least we could do would be to make sure everyone involved receives some "unconscious bias training" (e.g. make it a mandatory part of court proceedings).
Oh cuil. The red herring of race takes hold, distracting people away from the universal brokenness of a clock-punching judicial system that assumes everyone is guilty, police that operate with impunity, and general lack of civil recompense for victims of wrongful arrest and prosecution.
The system is far from the lofty ideal you were taught in civics class, regardless of one's skin color. Fixing the fundamental issues must be done first in order to even make racial bias legible and to have an ideal to work towards.
[+] [-] j_m_b|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jquery|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] majormajor|11 years ago|reply
What I have seen is media reports and then, even more vividly than news reports, movie and TV portrayals, of such and other crimes.
So now, any pattern-matching I do on "this is the type of person who does that type of thing" isn't based on my own experiences, it's based on the ones people have shown me. So maybe there were things influenced what got reported on, or what types of people get written into stories in what roles—aka my bias would be based on other people's bias which would be based on... as well as questions about what types of crimes get reported on/turned into movies, etc. Violence sells, etc. This is problematic for the idea that "bias" is just the brain doing reliable and sophisticated analysis of trustworthy data.
[+] [-] hackuser|11 years ago|reply
No, it's just tribal instincts against the 'other'; no prior experience is necessary; people will kill people from groups they have no expereince with because they are different. Consider homophobia: Is it because the attackers have experience being assaulted by gays? What about violence against women? (In fact, I think reality may be reverse of your theory: The same people are victimized over and over; the weak are abused by the powerful.)
The solution is conceptually simple: Teach people to see the other groups as 'one of us'. It does happen over the long run; I read research that within a few generations, for example, new immigrant groups mostly inter-marry with others (arguably blacks became the equivalent of new immigrants when they finally had full legal rights in the 1960s, and racial intermarriage now is growing quickly). Consider Protestants and Catholics, who used to riot against each other. 55 years ago, a Catholic winning the Presidency was a big deal. Now nobody cares or notices; a Catholic marrying a Protestant is completely unremarkable.
Rather than arbitrarily causing generations of suffering, we can learn to do better now.
[+] [-] benkuykendall|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] candu|11 years ago|reply
To fully do this, you'd need an environment in which all parties are mutually identity-blind. Some kind of virtual courtroom where everyone assumes a "neutral" avatar and speaks through a synthesized voice (again, "neutral") might approximate this.
How would you get there from here? First, you'd need a prototype and substantial basic research - not within the criminal justice system - supporting up the hypothesis that this reduces bias. Next, you'd need to beef up security, accessibility, etc. before slogging through the procurement process. You'd then test it on a small handful of actual cases, thereby gathering data to support a wider rollout.
In the meantime: not sure. The very least we could do would be to make sure everyone involved receives some "unconscious bias training" (e.g. make it a mandatory part of court proceedings).
[+] [-] streptomycin|11 years ago|reply
* Judges and juries are only allowed to be the same race as the defendant.
* Increase/decrease the sentencing guidelines by X% for a certain race. 20 years max for a certain offense for Race Y, 15 years max for Race Z.
* Preferentially give better public defenders to people of certain races, or maybe just give them money to hire non-public defenders.
* Pick some small percentage of cases, say 5%. For people of Race Z, just let them go free 5% of the time. Don't even have a trial.
* Give nicer prison accommodations to people based on race. Similarly, make early release requirements less stringent for people based on race.
* For people of the privileged race, randomly arrest some innocent ones and try your best to pin the crime on them.
Like I said, these are all bad ideas, but they would counteract unconscious racial bias.
[+] [-] pg_is_a_butt|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mindslight|11 years ago|reply
The system is far from the lofty ideal you were taught in civics class, regardless of one's skin color. Fixing the fundamental issues must be done first in order to even make racial bias legible and to have an ideal to work towards.
[+] [-] classicsnoot|11 years ago|reply
not being snarky; i think this one is a clear 'No.'
[+] [-] Hytosys|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stephengillie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pg_is_a_butt|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]