Loomis v. Wisconsin

Last updated

Loomis v. Wisconsin, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 2290 (2017), was a Wisconsin Supreme Court case that was appealed to the United States Supreme Court. [1]

The case challenged the State of Wisconsin's use of closed-source risk assessment software in the sentencing of Eric Loomis to six years in prison. [2] The case alleged that using such software in sentencing violates the defendant's right to due process because it prevents the defendant from challenging the scientific validity and accuracy of such test. [3] The case also alleged that the system in question (COMPAS) violates due process rights by taking gender and race into account. [4] Hearing this case would have given the court "the opportunity to rule on whether it violates due process to sentence someone based on a risk-assessment instrument whose workings are protected as a trade secret." [5]

The Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari, thus declining to hear the case, on June 26, 2017. [6] [7]

Background

In February 2013, Eric Loomis was found driving a car that had been used in a shooting. He was arrested, and pleaded guilty to eluding an officer. [8] In determining his sentence, the judge looked at his criminal record as well as a score assigned by a tool called COMPAS. [9]

The software works using a proprietary algorithm that considers some of the answers to a 137-item questionnaire. Developed by a private company called Equivant (formerly Northpointe), COMPAS has been used by the U.S. states of New York, Wisconsin, California, Florida's Broward County, and other jurisdictions. [10]

COMPAS classified Loomis as high-risk of re-offending, and Loomis was sentenced to six years. [8] He appealed the ruling on the grounds that the judge, in considering the outcome of an algorithm whose inner workings were secretive and could not be examined, violated due process. [8] [9]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1791 amendment enumerating rights related to criminal prosecutions

The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the United States Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court has applied all but one of this amendment's protections to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A vacated judgment makes a previous legal judgment legally void. A vacated judgment is usually the result of the judgment of an appellate court, which overturns, reverses, or sets aside the judgment of a lower court. An appellate court may also vacate its own decisions.

Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008), is a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which upheld the constitutionality of a particular method of lethal injection used for capital punishment.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pre-crime</span> Term for crimes not yet committed

Pre-crime is the idea that the occurrence of a crime can be anticipated before it happens. The term was coined by science fiction author Philip K. Dick, and is increasingly used in academic literature to describe and criticise the tendency in criminal justice systems to focus on crimes not yet committed. Precrime intervenes to punish, disrupt, incapacitate or restrict those deemed to embody future crime threats. The term precrime embodies a temporal paradox, suggesting both that a crime has not yet occurred and that it is a foregone conclusion.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Wisconsin circuit courts</span>

The Wisconsin circuit courts are the general trial courts in the state of Wisconsin. There are currently 69 circuits in the state, divided into 10 judicial administrative districts. Circuit court judges hear and decide both civil and criminal cases. Each of the 249 circuit court judges are elected and serve six-year terms.

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) software and methodologies give quantitative estimates of risks, given the parameters defining them. They are used in the financial sector, the chemical process industry, and other areas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Capital punishment in Florida</span> Overview of the use of capital punishment in the U.S. state of Florida

Capital punishment is a legal penalty in the U.S. state of Florida.

Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (2005), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of shackling a prisoner during the sentencing phase of a trial. In a 7–2 opinion delivered by Justice Breyer, the court held that it is against due process, a right prescribed by the 5th and 14th Amendments, to shackle a defendant in the sentencing portion of a trial unless the shackling relates to a specific defendant and certain state interests.

Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole are unconstitutional for juvenile offenders. The ruling applied even to those persons who had committed murder as a juvenile, extending beyond Graham v. Florida (2010), which had ruled juvenile life without parole sentences unconstitutional for crimes excluding murder.

Bail in the United States refers to the practice of releasing suspects from custody before their hearing, on payment of bail, which is money or pledge of property to the court which may be refunded if suspects return to court for their trial. Bail practices in the United States vary from state to state.

Hall v. Florida, 572 U.S. 701 (2014), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bright-line IQ threshold requirement for determining whether someone has an intellectual disability is unconstitutional in deciding whether they are eligible for the death penalty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13780</span> 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Algorithmic bias</span> Technological phenomenon with social implications

Algorithmic bias describes systematic and repeatable errors in a computer system that create "unfair" outcomes, such as "privileging" one category over another in ways different from the intended function of the algorithm.

Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) is a case management and decision support tool developed and owned by Northpointe used by U.S. courts to assess the likelihood of a defendant becoming a recidivist.

Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court clarified the Sixth Amendment standard for reversing convictions due to ineffective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining. The Court ruled that when a lawyer's ineffective assistance leads to the rejection of a plea agreement, a defendant is entitled to relief if the outcome of the plea process would have been different with competent advice. In such cases, the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires the trial judge to exercise discretion to determine an appropriate remedy.

Sessions v. Dimaya, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 16(b), a statute defining certain "aggravated felonies" for immigration purposes, is unconstitutionally vague. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) classifies some categories of crimes as "aggravated felonies", and immigrants convicted of those crimes, including those legally present in the United States, are almost certain to be deported. Those categories include "crimes of violence", which are defined by the "elements clause" and the "residual clause". The Court struck down the "residual clause", which classified every felony that, "by its nature, involves a substantial risk" of "physical force against the person or property" as an aggravated felony.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First Step Act</span> United States federal statute

The First Step Act, formally known as the Formerly Incarcerated Reenter Society Transformed Safely Transitioning Every Person Act, is a bipartisan criminal justice bill passed by the 115th Congress and signed by President Donald Trump in December 2018. The Act enacted several changes in U.S. federal criminal law aimed at reforming federal prisons and sentencing laws in order to reduce recidivism, decreasing the federal inmate population, and maintaining public safety.

United States v. Haymond, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down 18 U.S.C. § 3583(k)'s five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain sex offenses committed by federal supervised releasees as unconstitutional unless the charges are proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined Gorsuch's plurality opinion, while Breyer provided the necessary fifth vote with his narrow concurrence that began by saying he agreed with much of Justice Alito's dissent, which was joined by Justices Roberts, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.

Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), is a case of the United States Supreme Court in which the justices ruled that the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution do not require that states adopt the insanity defense in criminal cases that are based on the defendant's ability to recognize right from wrong. It was argued on October 7, 2019 and decided on March 23, 2020.

Moore v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 1039 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court decision about the death penalty and intellectual disability. The court held that contemporary clinical standards determine what an intellectual disability is, and held that even milder forms of intellectual disability may bar a person from being sentenced to death due to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The case clarified two earlier cases, Atkins v. Virginia (2002) and Hall v. Florida (2014).

References

  1. ↑ "Loomis v. Wisconsin - SCOTUSblog". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 2017-05-05.
  2. ↑ Smith, Mitch (2016-06-22). "In Wisconsin, a Backlash Against Using Data to Foretell Defendants' Futures". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2017-05-05.
  3. ↑ "State v. Loomis". harvardlawreview.org. Retrieved 2017-05-05.
  4. ↑ "FindLaw's Supreme Court of Wisconsin case and opinions". Findlaw. Retrieved 2017-05-05.
  5. ↑ Wexler, Rebecca (2017-06-13). "Opinion | When a Computer Program Keeps You in Jail". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2017-09-18.
  6. ↑ "Supreme Court Order List (06/26/2017)" (PDF). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved 2017-09-18.
  7. ↑ "Docket for 16-6387". www.supremecourt.gov. Retrieved 2017-09-18.
  8. 1 2 3 "A Popular Algorithm is No Better at Predicting Crimes Than Random People". The Atlantic . 17 January 2018.
  9. 1 2 Robin A. Smith. Opening the lid on criminal sentencing software. Duke Today, 19 July 2017
  10. ↑ Kirkpatrick, Keith (2017-01-23). "It's not the algorithm, it's the data". Communications of the ACM. 60 (2): 21–23. doi:10.1145/3022181. S2CID   33993859.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.