How May U.S. Courts Scrutinize Their Recidivism Risk Assessment Tools? Contextualizing AI Fairness Criteria on a Judicial Scrutiny-based Framework

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.02749v2
• Date: Mon, 26 May 2025 14:26:49 GMT
• Title: How May U.S. Courts Scrutinize Their Recidivism Risk Assessment Tools? Contextualizing AI Fairness Criteria on a Judicial Scrutiny-based Framework
• Authors: Tin Nguyen, Jiannan Xu, Phuong-Anh Nguyen-Le, Jonathan Lazar, Donald Braman, Hal Daumé III, Zubin Jelveh,
• Abstract summary: We conduct legal research to identify if and how technical AI conceptualizations of fairness surface in primary legal sources.<n>We propose a new framework, integrating U.S. demographics-related legal scrutiny concepts and technical fairness criteria.
• Score: 18.509813368002
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The AI/HCI and legal communities have developed largely independent conceptualizations of fairness. This conceptual difference hinders the potential incorporation of technical fairness criteria (e.g., procedural, group, and individual fairness) into sustainable policies and designs, particularly for high-stakes applications like recidivism risk assessment. To foster common ground, we conduct legal research to identify if and how technical AI conceptualizations of fairness surface in primary legal sources. We find that while major technical fairness criteria can be linked to constitutional mandates such as ``Due Process'' and ``Equal Protection'' thanks to judicial interpretation, several challenges arise when operationalizing them into concrete statutes/regulations. These policies often adopt procedural and group fairness but ignore the major technical criterion of individual fairness. Regarding procedural fairness, judicial ``scrutiny'' categories are relevant but may not fully capture how courts scrutinize the use of demographic features in potentially discriminatory government tools like RRA. Furthermore, some policies contradict each other on whether to apply procedural fairness to certain demographic features. Thus, we propose a new framework, integrating U.S. demographics-related legal scrutiny concepts and technical fairness criteria, and contextualize it in three other major AI-adopting jurisdictions (EU, China, and India).

Related papers

• Incorporating Legal Structure in Retrieval-Augmented Generation: A Case Study on Copyright Fair Use [44.99833362998488]
  This paper presents a domain-specific implementation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation tailored to the Fair Use Doctrine in U.S. copyright law.<n>Motivated by the increasing prevalence of DMCA takedowns and the lack of accessible legal support for content creators, we propose a structured approach that combines semantic search with legal knowledge graphs and court citation networks to improve retrieval quality and reasoning reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-04T15:53:49Z)
• A Law Reasoning Benchmark for LLM with Tree-Organized Structures including Factum Probandum, Evidence and Experiences [76.73731245899454]
  We propose a transparent law reasoning schema enriched with hierarchical factum probandum, evidence, and implicit experience.<n>Inspired by this schema, we introduce the challenging task, which takes a textual case description and outputs a hierarchical structure justifying the final decision.<n>This benchmark paves the way for transparent and accountable AI-assisted law reasoning in the Intelligent Court''
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T10:26:54Z)
• An evidence-based methodology for human rights impact assessment (HRIA) in the development of AI data-intensive systems [49.1574468325115]
  We show that human rights already underpin the decisions in the field of data use. This work presents a methodology and a model for a Human Rights Impact Assessment (HRIA) The proposed methodology is tested in concrete case-studies to prove its feasibility and effectiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-30T16:27:52Z)
• Fairness in AI: challenges in bridging the gap between algorithms and law [2.651076518493962]
  We identify best practices and strategies for the specification and adoption of fairness definitions and algorithms in real-world systems and use cases. We introduce a set of core criteria that need to be taken into account when selecting a specific fairness definition for real-world use case applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-30T08:59:00Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• AI Fairness in Practice [0.46671368497079174]
  There is a broad spectrum of views across society on what the concept of fairness means and how it should be put to practice. This workbook explores how a context-based approach to understanding AI Fairness can help project teams better identify, mitigate, and manage the many ways that unfair bias and discrimination can crop up across the AI project workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T23:02:56Z)
• MUSER: A Multi-View Similar Case Retrieval Dataset [65.36779942237357]
  Similar case retrieval (SCR) is a representative legal AI application that plays a pivotal role in promoting judicial fairness. Existing SCR datasets only focus on the fact description section when judging the similarity between cases. We present M, a similar case retrieval dataset based on multi-view similarity measurement and comprehensive legal element with sentence-level legal element annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:17:11Z)
• FFB: A Fair Fairness Benchmark for In-Processing Group Fairness Methods [84.1077756698332]
  This paper introduces the Fair Fairness Benchmark (textsfFFB), a benchmarking framework for in-processing group fairness methods. We provide a comprehensive analysis of state-of-the-art methods to ensure different notions of group fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-15T19:51:28Z)
• Compatibility of Fairness Metrics with EU Non-Discrimination Laws: Demographic Parity & Conditional Demographic Disparity [3.5607241839298878]
  Empirical evidence suggests that algorithmic decisions driven by Machine Learning (ML) techniques threaten to discriminate against legally protected groups or create new sources of unfairness. This work aims at assessing up to what point we can assure legal fairness through fairness metrics and under fairness constraints. Our experiments and analysis suggest that AI-assisted decision-making can be fair from a legal perspective depending on the case at hand and the legal justification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-14T09:38:05Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)
• Transparency, Compliance, And Contestability When Code Is(n't) Law [91.85674537754346]
  Both technical security mechanisms and legal processes serve as mechanisms to deal with misbehaviour according to a set of norms. While they share general similarities, there are also clear differences in how they are defined, act, and the effect they have on subjects. This paper considers the similarities and differences between both types of mechanisms as ways of dealing with misbehaviour.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-08T18:03:07Z)
• Why Fairness Cannot Be Automated: Bridging the Gap Between EU Non-Discrimination Law and AI [10.281644134255576]
  Article identifies a critical incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing statistical measures of fairness. We show how the legal protection offered by non-discrimination law is challenged when AI, not humans, discriminate. We propose "conditional demographic disparity" (CDD) as a standard baseline statistical measurement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-05-12T16:30:12Z)
• Getting Fairness Right: Towards a Toolbox for Practitioners [2.4364387374267427]
  The potential risk of AI systems unintentionally embedding and reproducing bias has attracted the attention of machine learning practitioners and society at large. This paper proposes to draft a toolbox which helps practitioners to ensure fair AI practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-15T20:53:50Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.