14 Comments
Apr 9, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

Hello Geary, i wanted to comment but i am late again due to holidays :)

On this subject i can recommend a book called "weapons of Math destruction". Being a technical person myself, i am used to algorithms, programming and so on, BUT, i think this current situation i made to get the life or normal people worse. Are they needed all these "automatic systems to take decisions or optimize resources"? it seems that we can no longer use common sense but do as being told (by the algorithm) , i think this is a bad side effect of a culture where everything is based on blaming-suing-taking to court. The result is that people do not want to be responsible and then the algorithm just give them the right excuse, because being responsible and taking a decision would expose them to loose everything.

BTW on the comments we made regarding the ukranian crisis i wanted to share with you a link about a document of Rand corporation issued in 2019 about weakening Russia, but i lost the link, if you are interested i will fin it.

Expand full comment
Apr 7, 2022·edited Apr 7, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

Humans are fallible and they are influenced easily by factors like full belly, smell and look but also attitude of the defendant and how the facts of the matter are presented.

I suppose you are right that the automated systems may help judges to eliminate some of this bias by proposing the sentences but mandatory or mechanical sentencing is still wrong - the reason we have judges is not only tradition of having the wise and educated in the law (one can hope) making decisions in court but also the simple fact that no set of rules cover it all and in such cases you may want to overwrite the automatic system that just failed to account for all circumstances.

One may argue of course that eventually we will update all the automatic/mechanic systems of judgment with all fringe cases but even if that were possible (which I think it is not) - an attempt to do so will produce a system that nobody understands because it is impossible to understand. We have that already - modern non-algorythmic systems based on e.g. neural networks cannot be understood. The problem of how to see that they did not fail (or how to notice that they did) is not easy to solve.

Besides even judge Dredd was not stranger to changing view on sentencing being influenced by e.g. others less lethal and more compassionate members of the community of judges.

Expand full comment
Apr 6, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

I seem to remember back in the 60s that they tried teaching criminals about psychopathy, and how to overcome it.

The problem was that they used the knowledge to hide their flaws and become better criminals.

Expand full comment

Very interesting. I like your consistently wonky and out-of-the-box perspective.

“ This is informative, when one considers why COMPAS may provide such differing results when it comes to race, despite the fact that it represents an improvement on the previous human bias of judges. In the case of gang members, individuals face social sanction and ostracism if they end their criminal associations and behaviour- an added incentive towards recidivism, especially when one considers the strength and intensity of the friendship bonds we form during the teenage years.”

Hadn’t thought of that but it makes complete sense.

My only pushback is that I’m not sure it would be so helpful to teach gang members specifically about psychopathy and the dark triad as it would to teach them about how some of their fellow members may have betrayed them. If you show people direct evidence that they were betrayed, they’ll be much less likely to remain loyal to the gang. In the abstract, “psychopathic gang members betray their comrades” doesn’t necessarily convince a member that HE was betrayed.

Also, haha, you’re a neocon. You just don’t know it yet. I mean neoconservative, not “neocon” which is used primarily by people who don’t know what neoconservatism was and think that calling someone a “neocon” means calling them a “globalist shill.” (Hint: neoconservatism originally had nothing to do with foreign policy.)

Expand full comment
Apr 6, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

“where their presence is far lower than most would suspect, but still a significant business problem.” - a small number can cause a lot of damage

When learning and discussing psychopathy in abnormal psych -we were taught that IQ plays a role in criminal vs. non-criminal. That psychopaths, like all other humans vary in IQ -the lower are more impulsive, violent, and less capable of long term planning. They tend to get caught more often because of it. Higher IQ are capable to patience ,long term planning, directed goals and weighing pros vs cons and considering outcomes, possible consequences.

So perhaps there are high IQ criminal minds-gang leaders -who use and take advantage of lower IQ -and manage them accordingly? If a new member is a match in intelligence -he will be considered a threat to leadership and be watched closely, possible groomed to rise up in rank or eliminated by a leader threatened.

Very thought provoking. Definitely deeper than what most discuss on the surface.

I’m so grateful that even though QC wasn’t the place for me I am still able to read your writings.

Expand full comment
Apr 6, 2022Liked by Geary Johansen

I am a member of the Braver Angels debate committee and plan to quote you in our next debate.

https://braverangels.org/event/national-debate-criminal-justice/

Expand full comment