It's not only what they think you did, but what you might do in the future.

[InSpiritInTruth]

Courts may be using data driven risk tools, including internet information to determine if criminals are a future or probable risk, even in determining a court sentence.

In court sentencing, beware data-driven 'risk' tools

Here's a quote from the article...."Courts in more than 20 states in the United States as well as in many other countries have begun to use analytic tools to determine the probability of a criminal being dangerous in the future. Congress is also weighing various bills to use computer-driven “risk assessment” in federal court sentencing, beyond the normal assessments by judges and clinical experts."[end quote]

So it's no longer what you actually did that determines your court sentence, what you might do in the future, based on "data driven tools" used like factual proof? Oh my. Be careful what internet sites you visit! LOL!

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

And a related news flash....https://www.yahoo.com/tech/s/snowden-leak-nsa-helped-british-steal-cell-phone-123105055.html

Oh my! LOL.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Courts have doing risk assessment prior to sentencing for years, decades even. It is called a Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) or Pre-Sentence Investigation (PSI). The risk assessment analysis has always been done by the investigating court services officer. Now they're using computers. So what? Its the same thing, finely tuned, that's all.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

So you see nothing wrong with being sentenced for something they think you might do in the future?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

So you see nothing wrong with being sentenced for something they think you might do in the future?

That's not what they're doing. They're sentencing for the current offense based on the likelihood of reoffense. The idea is to assign the most effective punishment for the person they see standing before them. If a forger, for example, is found by the PSI to be unlikely to reoffend and not only can but will pay restitution for the current offense, they'll give him/her probation so that can happen sooner. If the forger exhibits lack of remorse and is deemed likely to reoffend even after prison time, they'll give him/her prison time, expect him/her to make restitution during parole or post-release, anticipating that the lengthy commitment to incarceration, post-release supervision, and financial responsibility for the current crime will "rehabilitate" them to they do not reoffend.

In theory, it is more than workable, it is should be effective. The problem is the prison system doesn't uphold its responsibility to rehabilitation. Prisons have become nothing more than human warehouses with no educational or vocational opportunities for the inmates that would actually accomplish the instilling of a good work ethic and provide knowledge enabling the inmate to find a vocation of interest to him/her that would provide a solid income upon his/her release. The system fails because the most key part of it has stopped doing what it was designed to do. As a result, reoffense after prison is likely in two-thirds of all men and women who become incarcerated. Prison is nothing more than school to become a better criminal.

But the concept of the PSI/PSR would work, if rehabilitation actually was possible in state and federal prisons.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Well I would say I totally disagree with this "crystal ball" type of sentencing. A person should be considered innocent until proven guilty of a crime, not sentenced based on what one thinks they might do some where off into the distant future.

To me this is just one step closer for convicting persons based only on electronic surveillance profiling of what they think a person might be, or think they might become, or some crime they might perform in the distant future.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Well I would say I totally disagree with this "crystal ball" type of sentencing.

it isn't "crystal ball" sentencing, ISIT. It is proven science, based on statistical evaluation of criminal behavior. And the sentence is for no more than what they have been convicted of at the time, combined with a pattern shown by the offender in his/her past and the ability to extrapolate what that behavior might mean in the future.

There are key psychological factors to look at, keys that will indicate that, though a certain path has been the one the offender followed up to now, some new factor during the arrest/trial/sentencing process now indicates he/she has changed their attitude and will now pursue a new path, one for good, or one for more and worse criminal behavior. It is for their own safety, rehabilitation, and improvement.

A person should be considered innocent until proven guilty of a crime, not sentenced based on what one thinks they might do some where off into the distant future.

Simple question: Should a five-time convicted armed robber be sentenced as though the new offense is a first offense?

Another simple question: Is it reasonable to expect that five-time convicted armed robber will no reoffend again, if given a light sentence?

That's all this is doing. Making the punishment fit the crime.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

it isn't "crystal ball" sentencing, ISIT. It is proven science, based on statistical evaluation of criminal behavior.

Proven science!!!??? Lol...that's all I needed to hear...sounds like they won a new convert. If mans science says it's true. well it must be true right? LOL!!!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Proven science!!!??? Lol...that's all I needed to hear...sounds like they won a new convert.

Science and faith are not mutually exclusive. Too many Christians are unwilling to accept any science because of what evolutionists, humanists, and warmists have tried to do to remake science in their own image. Empirical evidence, however, is proof that science works within God's framework.

And obviously you didn't know I have master of arts in behavioral psychology. Behavioral pysch was greatly advanced by the work of Dr. Aaron Beck, the father of cognitive behavioral therapy. Dr. Beck is a Christian -- he's still alive at 92 -- and used biblical principles to guide his description of CBT, the process, essentially, of "taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ." He called it CBT because calling it "biblically based therapy" would have never gotten him through the door at the APA. Joke's on them, in the end.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Here's a good show to watch on the many deceptions of mans so called forensic science, and how it is assumed to be the truth in a court of law, even so the called "science" of fingerprints; falsely so called. It's worth the hour to watch, and see all the deceptions being portrayed as truth and called "science".

The Real CSI | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Here's a good show to watch on the many deceptions of mans so called forensic science, and how it is assumed to be the truth in a court of law, even so the called "science" of fingerprints; falsely so called. It's worth the hour to watch, and see all the deceptions being portrayed as truth and called "science".

The Real CSI | FRONTLINE | PBS

So you're going to trust a "documentary" by the godless secular Public Broadcasting System instead of the empirical evidence that proves the value of both DNA and fingerprint evidence, when both are properly processed? That's a very unsophisticated approach, given that, again, the empirical evidence supporting both methods of criminal investigation is overwhelming, and those who have questioned the overall validity of these methods can actually only make accusation against improperly collected and processed evidence.

I'm all for debunking "science" that abuses its purpose for political reasons. Those isolated abuses, however, do not call into question all of science.

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

That documentary exposes the lies of mans so called "science" and so called "experts" of a science that is nothing more than speculations and assumptions of men who are well.... just liars.... trying to make a name and a buck for themselves. When you realize what spirit is working in the hearts and minds of these so called experts of mans science then you will also question everything they proclaim "as truth" but is really of a lie.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

That documentary exposes the lies of mans so called "science" and so called "experts" of a science that is nothing more than speculations and assumptions of men ...

Perhaps in some minds it does. But it doesn't actually do that.

Here are the facts:
1. No two people have ever been found to have identical fingerprints.
2. Errors are at the practitioner level, not in the methodology
3. It is an outright lie that fingerprint has not been subjected to empirically based testing, and is in fact the most tested science in existence.
4. The recent spate of criticism regarding the scientific viability of fingerprint technology is nothing new. Over the last 100 years, it has been constantly challenged, reassessed, and "debunked." None of the challenges survives the science.

PBS is doing nothing but perpetuating the liberal lie, for God only knows what reason. And you have wandered far afield of your OP. So tell me, ISIT, what's the real problem you have going on here? Obviously you have an issue with what you would post as "science," but I don't think that's at the core of what has irked or saddened you. May I ask, what is it?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Dude, a scientist tested the so called fingerprint "experts" and 4 out of 5 failed the test. LOL!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Dude, a scientist tested the so called fingerprint "experts" and 4 out of 5 failed the test. LOL!

Which, as I said, is practice, not method. No one has ever been found to share fingerprint patterns with another person. Empirical testing has proven the technology to be reliable, but has also shown that practitioners aren't perfect -- but then, who is? The reliability factor is almost 99.9%. If you could get a weather forecast guaranteed to be that accurate, you'd go with it every time.

So I ask again, out of concern, what's the real problem?

 

[InSpiritInTruth]

Which, as I said, is practice, not method. No one has ever been found to share fingerprint patterns with another person.

So I ask again, out of concern, what's the real problem?

Science has not found proof of God either, does their science prove God does not exist? And has science compared the finger prints of every man woman and child ever born to see if that is really true? (I think not) The science of finger prints was never even a science, and was never scientifically proven to be 100% accurate, without error, as man has claimed for 100 years or so. The fact is, it has been proven to be wrong in several instances.

The real problem is men are liars and fabricators of evidence which they call truths and "facts".