Algorithmic Bias and Place of Residence: Feedback Loops in Financial and Risk Assessment Tools
Keywords:
algorithmic bias, feedback loops, risk-need assessment tools, financial scoring systems, place of residence
Abstract
This article explores how criminal risk-need assessment algorithms (e.g., COMPAS) and financial scoring systems (e.g., FICO) create feedback loops that perpetuate systemic biases, disproportionately affecting already financially marginalized groups. It examines the intersection of these tools, particularly how factors like place of residence, financial instability, and access to resources influence both systems. Using a theoretical critique, this study indirectly analyzes (1) criminological theories, (2) algorithmic design principles, and (3) evidentiary standards. The criminological theories considered-including Social Class and Crime, Strain Theory, Subcultural Perspectives, Labeling and Marxist/ Conflict Theories, Control Theories, and Differential Association Theory-share a consensus that environmental factors contribute to crime. While this research does not aim to verify their conclusions, it investigates how algorithmic models incorporate personal financial data and place of residence. It also examines the relevance of these to observing non-virtuous behaviors, as supported by the previously mentioned criminological theories, although the findings of these theories may differ regarding the levels of relevance of the environment to criminal occurrences. Additionally, evidentiary standards and numerical reasoning help assess how these inputs shape potentially biased and unfair scores.
Downloads
How to Cite
References
Stefanía Ægisdóttir, Michael White, Paul Spengler, Alan Maugherman, Linda Anderson, Robert Cook, Cassandra Nichols, Georgios Lampropoulos, Blain Walker, Genna Cohen, Jeffrey Rush (2006) The Meta-Analysis of Clinical Judgment Project: Fifty-Six Years of Accumulated Research on Clinical Versus Statistical Prediction. 34(3), 341-382.
D Andrews, C Dowden (2008) The risk-needresponsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crimeprevention jurisprudence. 49(4), 439-464.
Julia Angwin, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu, Lauren Kirchner (2016) Machine Bias *. 254-264.
V Barnett (1973) Comparative Statistical Inference.
I Brunton-Smith, P Sturgis (2011) Do neighborhoods generate fear of crime? An empirical test using the British Crime Survey. 49(2), 331-369.
J Bonta, D Andrews (2024) Psychology of Criminal Conduct.
R Carnap (1950) Logical Foundations of Probability.
J Dressel, H Farid (2018) The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. 4(1), 5580.
M Etienne (2009) Legal and practical implications of evidence-based sentencing by judges. 1(1), 43-60.
J Ferrer Beltrán (2007) La valoración racional de la prueba.
J Ferrer Beltrán (2021) Prueba sin convicción.
I Good (1983) Good Thinking: The Foundations of Probability and its Applications.
Kelly Hannah-Moffat (2005) Criminogenic needs and the transformative risk subject. 7(1), 29-51.
K Hannah-Moffat (2013) Actuarial sentencing: An "unsettled" proposition. 30(2), 270-296.
K Heilbrun (2009) Risk assessment in evidencebased sentencing context and promising uses. 1(1), 127-142.
J Kanan, M Pruitt (2002) Modeling fear of crime and perceived victimization risk: The (in) significance of neighborhood integration. 72(4), 527-548.
D Kaye (1988) Introduction. What is Bayesianism.
L Laudan (2016) The Law's Flaws. Rethinking Trial and Errors? Milton Keynes.
Jennifer Logg, Julia Minson, Don Moore (2019) Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. 151, 90-103.
D Mackenzie (2001) Corrections and sentencing in the 21st century: Evidence-based corrections and sentencing. 81, 299.
J Mackie (1973) Truth, Probability and Paradox: Studies in Philosophical Logic.
M Marcus (2009) MPC-The root of the problem: Just deserts and risk assessment. 61(4), 751-776.
M Marcus (2009) Conversations on evidencebased sentencing. 1(1), 61-125.
B Dietvorst, J Simmons, C Massey (2015) Algorithm aversion: people erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. 144(1), 114.
(2015) Practitioner's guide to COMPAS core.
Valeria Saladino, Oriana Mosca, Filippo Petruccelli, Lilli Hoelzlhammer, Marco Lauriola, Valeria Verrastro, Cristina Cabras (2021) The Vicious Cycle: Problematic Family Relations, Substance Abuse, and Crime in Adolescence: A Narrative Review. 12, 673954.
Marco Santos (2024) The Lack of Evidentiary Standards to Define "Sufficient Evidence of Authorship" in Pretrial Detentions in Brazil: The Jurisprudence of the Brazilian Constitutional Court. 15(03), 1784-1813.
L Savage (1954) The Foundations of Statistics.
A Sorge, G Borrelli, E Saita, R Perrella (2022) Violence Risk Assessment and Risk Management: Case-Study of Filicide in an Italian Woman. 19(12), 6967.
R Warren (2007) Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates. 19(4), 275-290.
M Wolfe (2008) Evidence-based judicial discretion: Promoting public safety through state sentencing reform. 83(5), 1389-1419.
Published
2025-08-27
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Authors and Global Journals Private Limited

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.