Abstract:In recent period, crime prediction programs have been newly introduced and utilized internationally in the field of criminal justice. COMPAS (“Corrective Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions”), as a representative example, is a recidivism prediction program used in several States in the United States. COMPAS is the most widely used risk assessment tools in the United States. The U.S. company Northpointe has developed an artificial intelligence algorithm that predicts the possibility of recidivism by analyzing the accumulated data such as criminal records, family relationships, educational history, drug abuse, etc. However, as it has been controversially argued that the results of these algorithms violate the defendants' constitutional rights, fundamental questions arise on how the results of the algorithm are produced, and what factors are calculated in judging a specific decision. In the era of A.I., ‘artificial intelligence’ is a concept that encompasses both technology development, utilization, and operation systems, normative judgment and policy design related to the use of the system in the judicial system. Furthermore, ethical guidelines for preventing individual risks in the use of artificial intelligence and other legal restraints, including criminal sanctions, should be established. Based on the crime prediction, this study will discuss the bias and racism of algorithms based on crime prediction technologies. This paper further aims to scrutinize the crime prediction and artificial intelligence algorithms in relation to the racial discrimination and social inequality against specific groups in criminal justice. Though not as much as in the U.S., often referred to as a ‘salad bowl’ society, South Korea has also entered a multicultural society due to recent surge in immigration, labor market, and international marriage. Lastly, the author emphasizes the importance of further research on the utilization of crime prediction tool in South Korea, as it requires careful deliberation and thorough comparative legal research prior the adoption of the new technology in the criminal justice system.

Algorithmic paranoia: the temporal governmentality of predictive policing

Predictive Policing and Artificial Intelligence

Evidence of What, for Whom? The Socially Contested Role of Algorithmic Bias in a Predictive Policing Tool

Big data surveillance across fields: Algorithmic governance for policing & regulation

Event-level prediction of urban crime reveals a signature of enforcement bias in US cities

How do "technical" design-choices made when building algorithmic decision-making tools for criminal justice authorities create constitutional dangers? Part II

Predictive Policing: A Fairness-aware Approach

Algorithmic governmentality and the space of ethics: Examples from ‘People Analytics’

Compounding Injustice: History and Prediction in Carceral Decision-Making

Artificial Intelligence Prediction Program in Criminal Justice System: focused on its Biased Algorithm in relation to the Racial Discrimination

Algorithmic policing: The datafication and categorization of everyday life in China’s pandemic technogovernance

The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism prediction

Big Data, Algorithmic Governmentality and the Regulation of Pandemic Risk

Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation

Algorithmic discrimination: examining its types and regulatory measures with emphasis on US legal practices

Algorithmic Necropolitics

Runaway Feedback Loops in Predictive Policing

Uncertainty in Criminal Justice Algorithms: simulation studies of the Pennsylvania Additive Classification Tool

Predictive Enforcement

Governing by Algorithm? No Noise and (Potentially) Less Bias

Ghosting the Machine: Judicial Resistance to a Recidivism Risk Assessment Instrument