Alternately: criminal prosecution is targeted at people who "look like" criminals; thus, the NN is just selecting those people we think look like criminals, rather than any inherent criminality.
Judges receiving kickbacks to throw minors into juvenile jail, racial bias in sentences, jail for marijuana, private prison etc. These are all trademarks of a broken penal system and we cannot and should not train machines based on this data.
I expect you have some solid evidence for this? Maybe just a citation? Anything? Obviously there is institutional racial bias, but kickbacks for private jails? for marijuana? for minors? Really?
He's probably referring to "Kids For Cash" [0].
> racial bias in sentences
You can look at federal and state incarceration statistics for yourself. African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans serve, on average, longer sentences for the same crimes as their Caucasian counterparts. Here's one source.[1]
> jail for marijuana
Mandatory minimums for possession (especially "with intent to sell") have been part of federal drug enforcement policy for the last 50 years. Here are a few of them.[2]
> private prison etc
It was only this year that the DOJ finally committed to eliminating private prisons in the federal system.[3] They're still a massive part of state penitentiary systems (see: cash for kids).
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kids_for_cash_scandal
[1]: https://www.aclu.org/issues/mass-incarceration/racial-dispar...
[2]: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/primer/
[3]: https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/phasing-out-our-use-private...
But the kickbacks was in the cash for kids scandal -- hopefully isolated criminal corruption in judges. The others are definitely negative and indications of a broken system, but not the level of "judges taking cash for sentences" corruption. Thank you for the clarification.
I feel that most people are in (considerably less extreme) versions of that situation: kind, generous people in general, who simply don't think about how the fairly banal things they do every day are part of really bad stuff. The distributed, banal nature of modern evils -- and they were intentionally structured that way so people wouldnt think about it -- is really what allows evil to flourish in modern society.
Yeah, it wasnt a big deal you flipped a train switch (or filled out mortgage loan paperwork a little shoddily, etc), and likely someone else would've done it instead, but if we all refused to do it, the world would be a better place.
I think many US judges are similar: they're good, a little bit selfish people who just don't think about the evil they contribute to.
Enforcing unjust laws, even fairly, is evil. And (almost) all US judges are guilty of that. (Eg, mandatory minimum drug laws, which empirically just cause harm.)
http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m...
TLDR: "There seems to be a strong racial bias in capital punishment and a moderate racial bias in sentence length and decision to jail. There is ambiguity over the level of racial bias... There seems to be little or no racial bias in arrests for serious violent crime, police shootings in most jurisdictions, prosecutions, or convictions."
You could have an app in smartphones that would detect criminal activity, so they could collect global data on actual criminal activity (bias: by people having smartphones with them).
So you'd need to have little autonomous robots following and watching every human being, and detecting automatically criminal activity, and then they could share their data and now machines could learn unbiased.
So Occam's razor seems to imply that something changes in the face for people with e.g. (lead) poisoning, brain defects leading to psychopathy/violent tendencies or something else?
It could alternatively be in the life style of criminals. Drug use or attitude to others? Someone that really prey on people might even have changed hormone levels, or something, as it might be an evolutionary strategy?
Or just body language, but not for face pictures of course. In Sweden, when a state security group hired people with police training, they didn't hire police that ever worked on the streets because it changes the body language in some way; they are recognized by criminals -- and vice versa. (This is old, I have no clue how it is today.)
Again, that can't explain how you can reach 89.5% hit frequency?! Even in China, there needs to be some evidence... right?
To me, that argument sounds like "double think", because of fears of a 1984 society -- where people are characterized from their faces. (That is stupid, if this can really be refined and made to work, then active criminals would just do cosmetic operations.)
If those results goes against your ideology, just note that it isn't peer reviewed yet. :-)