How artificial intelligence exposed Britain’s wrongful conviction review body as a corrupt joke; and why algorithms should replace the human fraudsters running it.
My IQ is around 135. I used to think Jeremy was guilty but now understand he was framed by the press and the case against him was a fabrication. The CCRC don’t like freeing innocent people and neither do the police.
Excellent blog post, Doc Maker. Hopefully Dame Vera Baird, the new interim Chair of the CCRC is a subscriber to your blog and will install the best and most robust and secure AI system asap. to slice through the caseload like a knife through butter.
I follow your posts and concur with your view of the CCRC.
The only caveat I give is that AI, by definition, is artificial; and therefore it is controlled by someone or something who is not AI.
So say, for example, that CCRCs findings are not arrived at by lack of intelligence, but by design. Extrapolating that to your example, and as you have pointed out, the CCRC is largely staffed by retired police officers, say one of them had an interest in your man NOT being given an appeal hearing…
From your post on the CCRC report, a reading of some parts could, possibly, support the notion that an ‘interested’ human party involved in the investigation or decision making, perhaps someone from the original police investigation even, was part of the review. Just as much as that person could ‘word salad’ the final CCRC report, they could also program an AI robot to arrive at the same conclusions.
Perhaps a non-police investigatory body, with an entirely separate and independent overseeing authority to safeguard all aspects, thoroughness and integrity of the investigation and respond to all concerns/complaints, might be the way to go?
You’re right — AI is never truly neutral. It’s always shaped by whoever sets its parameters, just as the CCRC’s work is shaped by the people running it. If those people have an interest — conscious or otherwise — in protecting the status quo, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
That’s why the CCRC’s heavy reliance on ex-police officers is so troubling. It’s not just a risk of unconscious bias; in a worst-case scenario, you could have individuals with a direct link to the original investigation influencing the review. That influence could take the form of selective interpretation of evidence, omission of inconvenient facts, or, as you put it, “word-salading” the final report so it appears thorough while avoiding the real issues.
If this is happening — and parts of their report certainly read as though they’ve been massaged into a predetermined conclusion — it’s not incompetence, it’s design. And as you say, the same outcome could be achieved with AI if it’s programmed to mirror the biases of its human controllers.
The only way to have real faith in such reviews is a body entirely independent of policing, answerable to an authority with no stake in the original case, complete transparency, and a legal duty to engage with every concern raised. Anything less is just a mechanism for rubber-stamping past mistakes.
My IQ is around 135. I used to think Jeremy was guilty but now understand he was framed by the press and the case against him was a fabrication. The CCRC don’t like freeing innocent people and neither do the police.
Excellent blog post, Doc Maker. Hopefully Dame Vera Baird, the new interim Chair of the CCRC is a subscriber to your blog and will install the best and most robust and secure AI system asap. to slice through the caseload like a knife through butter.
I'm not religious... but my god YES!! THE BIAS IS REAL, the human 'error' whether intentional or not is rampant
I follow your posts and concur with your view of the CCRC.
The only caveat I give is that AI, by definition, is artificial; and therefore it is controlled by someone or something who is not AI.
So say, for example, that CCRCs findings are not arrived at by lack of intelligence, but by design. Extrapolating that to your example, and as you have pointed out, the CCRC is largely staffed by retired police officers, say one of them had an interest in your man NOT being given an appeal hearing…
From your post on the CCRC report, a reading of some parts could, possibly, support the notion that an ‘interested’ human party involved in the investigation or decision making, perhaps someone from the original police investigation even, was part of the review. Just as much as that person could ‘word salad’ the final CCRC report, they could also program an AI robot to arrive at the same conclusions.
Perhaps a non-police investigatory body, with an entirely separate and independent overseeing authority to safeguard all aspects, thoroughness and integrity of the investigation and respond to all concerns/complaints, might be the way to go?
You’re right — AI is never truly neutral. It’s always shaped by whoever sets its parameters, just as the CCRC’s work is shaped by the people running it. If those people have an interest — conscious or otherwise — in protecting the status quo, the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
That’s why the CCRC’s heavy reliance on ex-police officers is so troubling. It’s not just a risk of unconscious bias; in a worst-case scenario, you could have individuals with a direct link to the original investigation influencing the review. That influence could take the form of selective interpretation of evidence, omission of inconvenient facts, or, as you put it, “word-salading” the final report so it appears thorough while avoiding the real issues.
If this is happening — and parts of their report certainly read as though they’ve been massaged into a predetermined conclusion — it’s not incompetence, it’s design. And as you say, the same outcome could be achieved with AI if it’s programmed to mirror the biases of its human controllers.
The only way to have real faith in such reviews is a body entirely independent of policing, answerable to an authority with no stake in the original case, complete transparency, and a legal duty to engage with every concern raised. Anything less is just a mechanism for rubber-stamping past mistakes.