What is the main conclusion?
Supporters of algorithmic sentencing tools point out that human judges are inconsistent: two defendants with similar histories can receive very different sentences depending on the judge, the time of day or the weather. A statistical tool, by contrast, treats like cases alike. The appeal of this consistency is real, but it conceals a trap. A model trained on past decisions inherits their biases, and then applies them uniformly and invisibly. A biased judge can be challenged in open court; a biased formula, protected as a trade secret, cannot. Consistency is a virtue only when what is being repeated is sound. Unless the workings of such tools can be inspected by the people they judge, we shall have exchanged variable injustice for standardised injustice.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: E. Algorithmic sentencing is only acceptable if its workings can be inspected
- Step 1: The passage grants the appeal of consistency, then warns that it can reproduce bias unless the tool can be inspected.
- Step 2: The final sentence states the condition.
Answer
Algorithmic sentencing is only acceptable if its workings can be inspected, since consistency can repeat bias.
Why not the others: The author does not recommend replacement, deny the inconsistency of judges, ban tools outright, or defend trade secrets.
Practise more Technology and justice.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.