Artificial intelligence could be on the cusp of getting\u00a0a bigger foothold in San Diego County\u2019s criminal justice system.<\/p>\n
The county wants to build an AI model to help write hundreds of reports every month for county probation officers, handing over to AI a role in the creation of a key document courts rely upon when they sentence defendants.<\/p>\n
If launched, the technology would use the disparate documents and information of a person\u2019s criminal history \u2014 police reports, court transcripts, case notes and more \u2014 and write summaries of their contents for inclusion in probation officers\u2019 reports, according to a draft contract for the system<\/a> the county released on Sept. 1.<\/p>\n During the sentencing phase of a criminal case, probation officers use their reports to make recommendations to the court. Those recommendations can include how long and to what extent a person should be incarcerated or put on community supervision.<\/p>\n For county officials, using AI to write these reports is meant to bring better efficiency to a probation department increasingly overloaded with work.<\/p>\n \u201cAutomating portions of report\u2011writing is intended to support officers by reducing administrative burden and improving efficiency,\u201d said Chuck Westerheide, a spokesperson for the county\u2019s public safety agencies.<\/p>\n \u201cAs efficiency is gained, staff can focus on meaningful client engagement, helping ensure resources are directed toward the department\u2019s core service priorities,\u201d Westerheide said.<\/p>\n For now, it\u2019s not yet known how much the county is planning to spend on this AI model.<\/p>\n A contract for building it has been put out to bid. Companies have until Oct. 16 to submit their proposals, which would include a budget.<\/p>\n On Sept. 8, the county gave a presentation on the contract to interested companies. Ten software and AI companies<\/a> attended the presentation, some of whom brand themselves as specializing in programming AI models for probation departments.<\/p>\n The draft contract does come with important caveats for what human control over the model is supposed to look like.<\/p>\n An eventual model will not make suggestions for what probation officers should recommend to the court about a person\u2019s sentencing, Westerheide said.<\/p>\n \u201cAll case reviews and decisions will continue to be made by probation officers using their professional expertise, established policies and a thorough individualized review of each client\u2019s circumstances,\u201d Westerheide said.<\/p>\n The model won\u2019t be used for juvenile defendants either, he added. Though the contract does note the model may have access to the juvenile records of adult defendants.<\/p>\n Use of the AI also won\u2019t be mandatory, Westerheide said.<\/p>\n Every year, the contract must analyze the model for \u201cbias and fairness assessments,\u201d and it comes with data protections, too.<\/p>\n Data collected by the model can only be used for county business and cannot be shared, according to the draft contract. But it does leave the door open for a company, including subcontractors, to train their AI models with county data, though they must get written approval from the county first.<\/p>\n Even with those protections, using an AI model to produce a statement of fact which could impact a person\u2019s rights or freedom is one of the riskier uses of the technology in criminal justice, said Jonathan Wroblewski, a Harvard law lecturer and former U.S. Department of Justice policy official.<\/p>\n Wroblewski has been working with the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, to release a framework<\/a> for criminal justice agencies to follow when deciding how to use AI.<\/p>\n Beyond weighing the risks, agencies need to do some hard thinking about how AI will actually solve their problems, and if they have a team and resources in place to adequately monitor the models they\u2019re using, Wroblewski said.<\/p>\n \u201cThis is the analysis that I would certainly recommend that they go through before they actually decide to deploy this,\u201d Wroblewski said.<\/p>\n \u201cThat statement of facts is going to help decide what a person\u2019s sentence is going to be, and that\u2019s something that\u2019s very important,\u201d he added. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t mean you shouldn\u2019t do it. It just means we should be careful, and the more careful means there should be more questions on the engineering and how it\u2019s done.\u201d<\/p>\n The contracting and bidding process is outside the power of the Board of Supervisors, who control county finances and policy.<\/p>\n But on first blush, supervisors\u2019 reactions to the proposed contract have ranged from supportive to calls for oversight.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen a report can influence decisions about someone\u2019s liberty, efficiency cannot come at the expense of accuracy, equity or due process,\u201d said Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe, a Democrat.<\/p>\n \u201cBefore moving forward, we need confidence that this technology has been rigorously tested for errors and bias, with meaningful human oversight and accountability,\u201d Montgomery Steppe said.<\/p>\n Supervisor Paloma Aguirre, a Democrat, said she\u2019ll be monitoring the contract going forward.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019re seeing some very concerning issues with AI right now, and I have real concerns about using it in a place where a report can decide whether someone goes home or goes to jail,\u201d Aguirre said.<\/p>\n Supervisor Joel Anderson, a Republican, said he trusts county staff and the probation department to build an AI model that avoids errors, bias and other issues.<\/p>\n Supervisors Jim Desmond and Terra Lawson-Remer did not return a request for comment.<\/p>\n Chief Probation Officer Tamika Nelson declined a request for comment.<\/p>\n \u2018Cautiously optimistic\u2019<\/p>\n