Guzman 1

Jordan Guzman
CST 300 Writing Lab
October 8, 2020
Racial Bias in AI-Driven Policing Technology

Artificial intelligence has been introduced in industries, such as healthcare. The promises

of efficiency and superior accuracy in AI has led to its appeal. Levels of efficiency and accuracy

that surpass those of humans can benefit our species. AI would provide a higher level of

accuracy when diagnosing patients, find the correct formula for vaccines at a faster rate, and

discover more effective treatments. However, there has been controversy in some applications

of artificial intelligence, such as in certain applications used in policing. Even though AI has

beneficial applications, it is incapable of being advanced enough to be fair and unbiased, and

thus should not be used in policing.

Artificial intelligence becomes capable of making decisions on its own through machine

learning. Machine learning consists of exposing a computer to vast amounts of data so that it

learns to make judgements based on patterns it recognizes in the data that it processes (Heilweil,

2020). The computer is initially provided with a set of metrics that describe the object(s) that it

will learn to recognize. The new data that the AI is exposed to are checked against the metrics,

thus allowing it to gain a better understanding of that which it is studying. These metrics serve

as the foundational knowledge on which the AI builds upon for further learning.

The issue of artificial intelligence used in policing lies within the metrics that are

provided to the AI. For instance, in predictive policing algorithms, such as those used in crime-

prediction technology, the metrics do not account for the implicit biases that have historically

affected black Americans. Research has been conducted in using facial recognition software to

find patterns that identify potential criminals through facial features. The metrics used were data

consisting of arrest records and convictions, which ultimately reflect on the choices of who
 Guzman 2

police choose to arrest and how judges choose to rule (Medium, 2020). These metrics are

scrutinized for being flawed due to research on how people of color and white people are treated

differently by police. According to these studies, the findings showed that people of color are

treated more harshly by police (Medium, 2020).

Criminal justice reform has been an issue raised, especially this year. Several videos of

violent, and sometimes fatal, interactions between the police and people of color have circulated

throughout social media and the news at a high frequency. The events depicted in the videos are

said to be motivated by racial bias from the police. It has led to increasing concern

that a failure to hold police accountable for their actions will reinforce racially motivated

encounters with people of color. Demands for defunding the police have been made.

Nationwide protests to police brutality have been persisting for months and tensions between

protestors and police remain high. Artificial intelligence is presented as a potential, but

controversial, solution to the issue of racial bias in policing.

There are important implications in using artificial intelligence in law enforcement. It

can be the defining factor that wrongfully incarcerates an innocent person. On the other hand, it

can potentially increase public safety by deterring people from committing crimes, especially

those of a violent nature. It can also potentially keep police safe while on duty. The police can

either benefit from using AI or it can make things worse for them, such as leading to lawsuits or

cultivating a higher level of distrust from the public. Both the police and people of color stand

with something to gain or lose if AI is further implemented in policing and are therefore

stakeholders in this decision.

The Police as Stakeholders

 Guzman 3

The police have a job to enforce the law and to protect the people. Police officers value

protecting the people and bringing criminals to justice. Pulling over motorists for a traffic

violation, arresting violent people, or responding to a call of domestic violence are just a few

examples of ways in which the police – directly and indirectly – protect others. The police work

to dismantle organized crime syndicates and to bring those involved to justice. An example

would be drug trafficking. Drug trafficking has been, and continues to be, an issue that has

claimed the lives of many through shootouts, violent executions, or overdoses of drug users. The

police work to bring those involved to justice.

With the many duties of police officers, the utilization of artificial intelligence to help

them fulfill these duties seems promising. The capacity for AI to assist in various areas and

enhance efficiency has led police to see it as an essential factor in law enforcement (Walch,

2019). They embrace this technology and the many areas in which they can apply it, such as

surveillance and crime forecasting. For example, the use of facial recognition software helped

Chinese officers identify – and eventually arrest – a person of interest that was in a large crowd

at a stadium (Walch, 2019). Cases, such as the one in China, are important in garnering support

from legislation to legally implement AI to help the police work more effectively.

The benefits the police see in using AI to assist them with their work is met with scrutiny

by claims of racially biased algorithms guiding the AI that they use to justify their actions.

However, the police refer to current implementations to advocate for using AI in policing. There

are important applications – such as facial and character recognition and data extraction from

digital evidence – that currently support police in safeguarding the public from online human sex

trafficking and child exploitation (Norris, 2019). The use of predictive policing technology will
 Guzman 4

help police to respond more effectively to incidents, prevent threats, stage interventions, divert

resources, and analyze criminal activity (Rigano, 2018).

People of color as Stakeholders

There has been a history of racial discrimination and unfair policing of people of color in

the U.S. Their values of justice and equal treatment have been especially molded by their

historical and ongoing fight for equality. Countless organizations, such as Data for Black Lives

and Civil Rights organizations, have made it their goal to advocate for black Americans and fight

against the injustices and unequal treatment motivated by underlying racial biases, implicit or

otherwise. Protestors also take to the streets to demand police accountability and reform within

the criminal justice system. It is important to the advocates of justice and equality that progress

is not undone.

The applications of AI in policing have raised concern for people of color. For this

reason, people of color are opposed to allowing AI in policing. Organizations, such as Data for

Black Lives, have addressed the possibility of AI being used to perpetuate discriminatory

practices especially within the field of law enforcement. ProPublica, a newsroom that performs

investigative journalism, conducted an investigation in which they proved how unreliable a

crime forecasting tool was in accurately determining who – of 7,000 people arrested in Broward

County, Florida – would commit violent crimes in the future (Angwin et al., 2016). Examples,

such as this one in Broward County, stress the importance for people of color to resist the

implementation of AI in policing.

Discrepancies that imply racial bias within policing tools have made it important to the

people of color that these tools are not permitted to be used. Using race as a variable has been

outlawed in the U.S., but other metrics, such as socioeconomic background, education, and zip
 Guzman 5

code are used (Heaven, 2020). In an MIT Technology Review article, author Will Douglas

Heaven states that although it is illegal to use race as a variable for AI to use, it is racist to use

metrics such as socioeconomic background, education, and zip code. However, he falls short of

providing an argument as to how it is racist. Providing a historical background of how people of

color have been systemically oppressed – through being subjected to a lower socioeconomic

status and a lower quality education that is correlated with the zip code – would add merit to the

claim that the metrics provided are racist.

In Support of AI

Both sides have arguments for their position on the issue. Their positions can be

understood through the lens of ethical frameworks. For instance, the police would argue through

a Utilitarian framework, which stresses that the right course of action is the one that produces the

“greatest happiness of the greatest number.” This framework was originally developed by

Jeremy Bentham and later refined by his student, John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism sets out to

achieve an ethical standard that can guide people to take actions that will aim to do good for the

majority, if not all, of the people affected by those actions.

Police would argue that implementing artificial intelligence tools in law enforcement will

provide a greater good by more effectively protecting the public and bringing criminals to justice

or deterring them from committing crimes. Through its capacity to endlessly search through the

vast amounts of data generated from cameras, video, and social media, AI can increase public

safety by detecting crimes that would likely go unnoticed by humans and by investigating

potential criminal activity (Rigano, 2018). Those that are in opposition of AI being used in

policing argue that the algorithms themselves are biased and disproportionately rate people of

color as being more likely to commit crimes. In defense of predictive policing software, the
 Guzman 6

police would likely refer to a study conducted by the developers of PredPol – the crime-

forecasting software that some police departments use – which demonstrated that predictive

policing does not reduce or increase existing discriminatory practices of patrols (Benbouzid,

2019). So, the AI would not be the core problem that needs to be addressed and abolishing it

would potentially compromise the potential for increased public safety, which is the greater good

from the perspective of the police.

If this software is implemented nationwide, then the police can perform better and

potentially help more people. This helps them meet their goal of protecting and serving.

However, there is great risk to using these tools. It can potentially lead to more lawsuits. Police

might lose their jobs if held accountable for acting on the suggestions of a possibly fallible

system. It can also create a greater level of distrust between the police and people of color.

In Opposition of AI

The people of color would argue through an ethical framework of equality as advocated

by John Locke. He believed that equality was a natural thing that transitioned from man in the

state of nature to their state in society, and his philosophy advocated equal rights for all. Locke

famously wrote that man has the right to life, liberty, and property. These were the words that

inspired the Declaration of Independence – a document which was foundational in the fight for

the abolishment of slavery. He also emphasized that people should not trade their liberty for

more security – which fundamentally underlies the issue of whether to allow artificial

intelligence to be implemented into law enforcement.

It has been argued that using AI-driven tools in policing will reinforce, and probably

worsen, racial discrimination. In an investigation of a crime-forecasting tool, ProPublica found

that the algorithm made mistakes between black and white defendants when it came to predicting
 Guzman 7

who would most likely re-offend (Angwin et al., 2016). Tools such as this one will not grant

people of color equal treatment with the law. Abolishing the use of AI-driven tools used for

policing will prevent this problem from happening. Those that support the abolishment of these

tools will argue that it is the right course of action because it will prevent the introduction of a

new medium in which inequality can be justified.

People of color stand to potentially lose the progress that has been made in achieving

equal treatment if these tools are allowed in law enforcement. Problems of racial discrimination

and unequal treatment persist despite the use of bodycams. It is more difficult to prove that

algorithms perpetuate racial biases due to many factors, such as the companies creating the AI

not willing to give access to the entire codebase and contending that forcing them to do so would

violate their rights. However, people of color do have something to gain, and that is more safety

from crime and a possible end to discriminatory practices from police if racial bias within the

algorithms is eradicated. If this happens, then the AI can be a catalyst that corrects for the

implicit – or explicit – biases of officers when conducting police work, and thus fostering more

equal treatment in legal matters for people of color.

My Position

The applications of artificial intelligence in aiding police in their work to protect and

serve the public is enticing. However, I do not think it is the right course of action. There are

too many risks that have implications for the lives of falsely convicted people. The algorithms

are based on metrics that have historically discriminated against people of color. For instance, a

quality education and desirable zip codes are mainly associated with white neighborhoods, which

is in stark contrast to the associations made with black neighborhoods. This can be attributed to

white flight, which is the term used to describe the migration of white people away from urban
 Guzman 8

areas and to the suburbs to avoid living near black Americans. Socioeconomic standards rely

heavily on a quality education. The metrics will not allow the AI to account for this

metainformation. Artificial intelligence is currently unable to correct for racial biases, and until

it can do so, then it should not be used in law enforcement.

I align most with the people of color because I value equality for all. I do not believe it

should be justified to sacrifice the freedoms and rights of potentially innocent people for the sake

of the promise of more safety. Liberty should not be compromised for more security. A

Utilitarian approach to this problem leaves room for some to suffer the consequences so that the

majority can benefit. Even though it seems unlikely, there is a potential solution.

One possible solution to allow for the use of AI in policing while lessening the presence

of discriminatory algorithms is to make it illegal for law enforcement to use the tools created by

private companies. The private sector is primarily concerned with earning profit, so this can

likely dissuade them from taking more rigorous and time-consuming approaches to ensure that

the algorithms are free of any biases. The creation of these tools should be assigned to the public

sector. The public sector must create diverse teams to work on these algorithms rather than a

team consisting mostly of a race that does not face discrimination the way people of color do. A

board – consisting of people trained in artificial intelligence and machine learning – should

review the codebase and discuss the potential ethical implications of their findings. From there,

they can decide to either release the tools to the police or continue to perfect them.
 Guzman 9

References

Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine Bias. ProPublica.

https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

Benbouzid, B. (2019). To predict and to manage. Predictive policing in the United States. SAGE

Journals. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2053951719861703

Heaven, W.D. (2020, July 17). Predictive policing algorithms are racist. MIT Technology

Review. https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/17/1005396/predictive-policing-

algorithms-racist-dismantled-machine-learning-bias-criminal-justice/

Heilweil, R. (2020, February 18). Why Algorithms can be racist and sexist. Vox.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/2/18/21121286/algorithms-bias-discrimination-facial-

recognition-transparency

Medium. (2020, June 22). Abolish the #TechToPrisonPipeline.

https://medium.com/@CoalitionForCriticalTechnology/abolish-the-techtoprisonpipeline-

9b5b14366b16

Norris, D. (2019, June 12). Artificial Intelligence and Community-Police Relations. Police Chief

Magazine. https://www.policechiefmagazine.org/ai-community-police-relations/

Rigano, C. (2018, September 30). Using Artificial Intelligence to Address Criminal Justice

Needs. National Institute of Justice. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/using-artificial-

intelligence-address-criminal-justice-needs
 Guzman 10

Walch, K. (2019, June 26). The Growth Of AI Adoption In Law Enforcement. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/cognitiveworld/2019/07/26/the-growth-of-ai-adoption-in-

law-enforcement/#477822e5435d