A Confidence-Based Approach for Balancing Fairness and Accuracy

We study three classical machine learning algorithms in the context of algorithmic fairness: adaptive boosting, support vector machines, and logistic regression. Our goal is to maintain the high accuracy of these learning algorithms while reducing the degree to which they discriminate against individuals because of their membership in a protected group. Our first contribution is a method for achieving fairness by shifting the decision boundary for the protected group. The method is based on the theory of margins for boosting. Our method performs comparably to or outperforms previous algorithms in the fairness literature in terms of accuracy and low discrimination, while simultaneously allowing for a fast and transparent quantification of the trade-off between bias and error. Our second contribution addresses the shortcomings of the bias-error trade-off studied in most of the algorithmic fairness literature. We demonstrate that even hopelessly naive modifications of a biased algorithm, which cannot be reasonably said to be fair, can still achieve low bias and high accuracy. To help to distinguish between these naive algorithms and more sensible algorithms we propose a new measure of fairness, called resilience to random bias (RRB). We demonstrate that RRB distinguishes well between our naive and sensible fairness algorithms. RRB together with bias and accuracy provides a more complete picture of the fairness of an algorithm

Doing minority justice through procedural fairness: face veil bans in Europe

The French and Belgian bans on face veils in public places have been subjected to strong substantive human rights critiques. This article takes a complementary approach, examining the bans from the perspective of procedural fairness. Indeed, the French and Belgian bans are extreme examples of legislative processes taking place above the heads of the people concerned, neglecting the ban’s possible human rights impact. After exploring what the social psychology notion of procedural fairness entails for the judiciary and the legislator, especially in a multicultural context, this article details procedural fairness shortcomings with respect to the face veil ban in France and Belgium. Subsequently, the article sets out how the European Court of Human Rights might compensate for these shortcomings

Electoral Due Process

Elections and their aftermath are matters left to the states by the U.S. Constitution. But the Supreme Court has made clear that the right to vote is federally protected, and fiercely so. When an election failure takes place and deprives citizens of their votes, challengers must resort to state law remedies. Many states have procedural requirements for election challenges that are stringent to the point of being prohibitive. This Note argues that the due process concerns raised by these burdensome state procedures are amplified by their voting rights context. Where a voter must take to the courts to vindicate her right to vote, she should not be further deprived by an unfair process. Federal courts hearing cases about unfair election-challenge procedures have been reluctant to interfere and are thus overly deferential to the states. This Note offers a new approach for “electoral due process” claims—an approach that is properly preservative of voters’ substantive rights and their rights to a fair hearing

Procedural Justice Post-9/11: The Effects of Procedurally Unfair Treatment of Detainees on Perceptions of Global Legitimacy

[Excerpt] “The Global War on Terror has been ideologically framed as a struggle between the principles of freedom and democracy on the one hand and tyranny and extremism on the other. Although this war has arguably led to a short-term disruption of terrorist threats such as al-Qaeda, it has also damaged America’s image both at home and abroad. Throughout the world, there is a growing consensus that America has “a lack of credibility as a fair and just world leader.” The perceived legitimacy of the United States in the War on Terror is critical because terrorism is not a conventional threat that can surrender or can be defeated in the traditional sense. Instead, this battle can only be won through legitimizing the rule of law and undermining the use of terror as a means of political influence. Although a variety of political, economic, and security policies have negatively impacted the perceived legitimacy of the United States, one of the most damaging has been the detention, treatment, and trial (or in many cases the lack thereof) of suspected terrorists. While many scholars have raised constitutional questions about the legality of U.S. detention procedures, this article offers a psychological perspective of legitimacy in the context of detention. I begin with a discussion of the psychology of terrorism. Next, I argue that the U.S. response to terrorism has been largely perceived as excessive, which has undermined global perceptions of U.S. legitimacy. I address this issue by drawing on a well-established body of social psychology research that proposes “a causal chain in which procedural fairness leads to perceived legitimacy, which leads to the acceptance of policies.” In other words, the fairness of the procedures through which individuals are detained and tried will significantly affect the perceived legitimacy of U.S. conduct in the War on Terror. In contrast to current detention policies, which have largely been implemented in an ad hoc manner, I suggest that procedural fairness can be increased through the establishment of a domestic terror court specifically designed to try detainees. Finally, I balance fairness with the competing values of effectiveness and efficiency to provide a framework through which U.S. legitimacy in the War on Terror can be enhanced.