The COMPAS (Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) algorithm has sparked significant debate about algorithmic bias and ethical implications in criminal justice systems. Developed by Northpointe Inc., it is designed to predict the likelihood of an individual reoffending within a specific timeframe. However, its use has raised critical questions about fairness, transparency, and the role of technology in decision-making.
Key Features of COMPAS
- Risk Assessment: Uses historical data to estimate recidivism risk
- Scoring System: Assigns a numerical score (1-10) for risk levels
- Applications: Widely adopted in U.S. courts for parole and sentencing decisions
- Controversies: Accused of racial bias in risk predictions
Ethical Concerns
⚠️ Bias in Predictive Models: Studies showed COMPAS disproportionately labeled Black defendants as high risk
⚠️ Lack of Transparency: The algorithm's proprietary nature made it difficult to audit
⚠️ Legal Implications: Courts have debated whether algorithmic decisions should be considered evidence
Impact and Reforms
- Public Awareness: Highlighted the risks of algorithmic decision-making in sensitive domains
- Research: Inspired academic studies on AI fairness (e.g., ProPublica's 2016 analysis)
- Policy Changes: Some jurisdictions have restricted its use or required bias audits
Further Reading
For deeper insights into algorithmic ethics, explore our guide on AI fairness principles.