Introduction
Multiple sources, scholars, and scientists support the statement that algorithms and electronic programs tend to support racial inequity, affecting surveillance and criminal justice. The book “Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code” explains how people face discriminative obstacles in the digital world when algorithms tag accounts as malicious based on their names, avatars, or particular actions (Ruha 2019). Ruha (2019) states that “the employment of new technologies that reflect and produce existing inequalities but that promoted and perceived as more objective or progressive than the discriminatory systems of a previous era.” Algorithmic oppression based on factors like names or avatar preferences is the brightest evidence of digital discrimination against the modern perception of equity.
Racial disparities exist and are widely used in the justice system, based on the recent events and scandals with police officers and people of color involved. Policymakers, scholars, technology, and social scientists explore new approaches to empower equity in the real and digital worlds. Vincent and Viljoen (2020) studied multiple instruments for risk assessment and revealed that most of them are racially biased due to the criminological data containing low authority scores for people of color.
The scientists claim that none of the risk assessment strategies are powerful enough to eradicate the disparities completely, however, it is crucial to improve the technology to at least decrease them (Vincent and Viljoen 2020). Peterson (2016) discusses that racial biases lead courts to make irrelevant sentences that question the justice system’s primary purpose. Ethical standards have to be applied to the data given to robots or algorithms to reduce racial disparities and promote equity.
Police warrants are another crucial issue of the online world as legislative permission to require opening social media accounts, messages, or private photos has not been established yet. Scachetti’s article (2017) reported that “gray areas still exist regarding what law enforcement expects to find in a search; prosecuting can become tricky if an officer finds the incriminating information not outlined in an original warrant.” The criteria for turning digital footprints into real evidence must also be clarified in the justice system as the police might not comply with the suspect’s human rights, thinking that there are no particular laws for the online world.
The latest innovations utilized by the justice system can help solve imprisonment and transformation problems. Steinberg and Zomorodi (2019) state that “nearly half a million people in the US are in jail right now without being convicted of a crime, simply because they can’t come up with the money to pay cash bail. ” Combination of social funding and technology created E-Carceration devices that allow people to avoid being in jail before the court (Ruha 2019).
Public defenders like Robin Steinberg claim that electronic monitoring is beneficial for both sides: it decreases incarceration costs for the justice system and helps the affected person feel more psychologically comfortable (Steinberg and Zomorodi 2019). Another technology-based approach integrated into the justice system is virtual reality applied for transformation. VR makes it possible to use immersive storytelling based on individuals’ experiencing the life conditions of others. The research by Bujić et al. (2020) revealed that transformative technology profoundly impacts the imprisoners’ mindsets and behavior. The empathy people feel for those who live in virtualized conditions changes their perception of crime.
Discussion
Modern society spends at least half of their lives in digital, and their online personalities can be different from the real ones. The most profound way of supporting diversity in a virtual world is to exclude any biases from it and apply equal rules to the users regardless of their names or skin color (Donoghue 2017). Technological progress outcomes can be integrated into the justice system to help it achieve equity and implement transformative measures (Villa 2020). However, the existence of illegal digital surveillance, algorithmic oppression, and racial disparities causes injustice and must be regulated on the legislative level.
The issue of police and justice systems’ treatment of technologies and digital identity is urgent because innovations keep appearing, and people’s perception of an online world rapidly changes. While warrant and surveillance approaches must be revised from the ethical side, defense and transformative technologies need to be practiced by more justice institutions. Algorithms coded to protect people have to do that equally, therefore risk assessment criteria have to be improved via features like artificial intelligence integration.
Conclusion
Social institutions fight against inequality in various ways, and implementing the latest technologies is one of the most efficient approaches. The Justice system is not an exclusion: VR-based transformative practices and electronic monitoring incarceration tools allow for cutting costs and impacting people’s attitudes. However, issues like algorithmic oppression and racial disparities compromise the meaning of justice and promote inequity, leading to unfair discrimination.
Moreover, technologies that are crafted to exclude human factors from the decision-making process still apply biases based on identifications like names or skin color. The root cause is the data uploaded to the algorithms, and it must be revised to provide more relevant information. Modern society lives in a unique period when technological development often radically changes the circumstances and people’s world perception. The Justice system is an institution that remains solid, however, its values have to comply with the requirements caused by the new era of equity.
References
Bujić, Mila, Mikko Salminen, Joseph Macey, and Juho Hamari. 2020. “Empathy Machine”: How Virtual Reality Affects Human Rights Attitudes.“ Internet Research 30(5): 1407-1425.
Donoghue, Jane. 2017. “The Rise of Digital Justice: Courtroom Technology, Public Participation and Access to Justice.” The Modern Law Review 80(6): 995-1025.
Peterson, Marlon. 2016. “Am I not Human? A Call for Criminal Justice Reform.” TED video.
Ruha, Benjamin. 2019. Race After Technology: Abolitionist Tools for the New Jim Code. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.
Scachetti, Leanna. 2017. “Socially Legal: How Digital Footprints Can Become Evidence.” WDBJ.
Steinberg, Robin, and Manoush Zomorodi. 2019. “The US is Addicted to Incarceration. Here’s How to Break The Cycle.” TED video.
Villa, Melissa. 2020. “Race After Technology – Final Thoughts.” Melissa Villa Blog.
Vincent, Gina M., and Jodi L. Viljoen. 2020. “Racist Algorithms or Systematic Problems? Risk Assessments and Racial Disparities.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 20(10): 1–9.
Završnik, Aleš. 2019. “Algorithmic Justice: Algorithms and Big Data in Criminal Justice Settings.” European Journal of Criminology, 1477370819876762.