In Defense of a Mixed Theory of Punishment

Altman, Matthew C.

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-11874-6_9

Palgrave Handbooks in the Philosophy of Law

2023

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-11874-6_9

|View full text |Cite

In Defense of a Mixed Theory of Punishment

Matthew C. Altman

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…question, see[44] and[45] 13. For recent overviews of the many competing penal theories, see e.g [41]. or[42].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial intelligence at sentencing: when do algorithms perform well enough to replace humans?

Ryberg

2024

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial intelligence is currently supplanting the work of humans in many societal contexts. The purpose of this article is to consider the question of when algorithmic tools should be regarded as performing sufficiently well to replace human judgements and decision-making at sentencing. More precisely, the question as to which are the ethically plausible criteria for the comparative performance assessments of algorithms and humans is considered with regard to both risk assessment algorithms that are designed to provide predictions of recidivism and sentencing algorithms designed to determine sentences in individual criminal cases. It is argued, first, that the prima facie most obvious assessment criteria do not stand up to ethical scrutiny. Second, that ethically plausible criteria presuppose ethical theory on penal distribution which currently has not been sufficiently developed. And third, that the current lack of assessment criteria has comprehensive implications regarding when algorithmic tools should be implemented in criminal justice practice.

show abstract

“…question, see[44] and[45] 13. For recent overviews of the many competing penal theories, see e.g [41]. or[42].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Artificial intelligence at sentencing: when do algorithms perform well enough to replace humans?

Ryberg

2024

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

In Defense of a Mixed Theory of Punishment

Cited by 1 publication

References 31 publications

Artificial intelligence at sentencing: when do algorithms perform well enough to replace humans?

Artificial intelligence at sentencing: when do algorithms perform well enough to replace humans?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About