CEZA ADALETİ SİSTEMİNDE AKTÜERYAL RİSK DEĞERLENDİRME ARAÇLARI: COMPAS ÖRNEĞİ ÜZERİNDEN BİR TARTIŞMA

Year 2025, Volume: 5 Issue: 1, 359 - 396

Efe Can Karabulat

https://doi.org/10.59909/khm.05.01.013

Abstract

Ceza muhakemesinin gereği gibi yürütülebilmesi ve cezaların infazının kendisinden beklenen amaçlara hizmet edebilmesi için sanık ve hükümlülerin risk ve ihtiyaçlarının doğru bir şekilde tespit edilebilmesi gerekir. Bu amaçla ceza adaleti sisteminde aktüeryal risk değerlendirme araçlarına başvurulmasının elli yılı aşkın bir tarihçesi söz konusudur. Geçtiğimiz yirmi beş yıllık süreçte ise, risk değerlendirme araçlarının bilgisayar destekli olarak kullanılabilmesi imkanı doğmuştur. Günümüzde bu şekilde kullanılan araçlardan biri de COMPAS’tır. Bir psikolojik ölçekler bütünü olan COMPAS, statik ve dinamik risk faktörleri ile failin ihtiyaçlarını dikkate alarak onun hakkında bir değerlendirme yapılabilmesini sağlamaktadır. Bu araçtan yararlanılarak hem sanığın tutuklu yargılanıp yargılanmayacağı hem hangi cezayla cezalandırılmasının daha uygun olacağı hem de koşullu salıverilmeden yararlandırılmasının doğru olup olmayacağı yönünde tespitler yapılabilmektedir. Faydalarına karşın, bu aracın kullanımına ilişkin ciddi endişeler de söz konusudur. Özellikle programın ayrımcılığa neden olduğu ve silahların eşitliği ilkelerini ihlal ettiği iddiaları halen tartışılmaktadır. Kanaatimizce Türkiye’de de benzer bir programın kullanılması mümkün olmakla birlikte, Türk ceza adaleti sistemi bu tür programların yalnızca infaz aşamasında kullanımına uygundur.

Keywords

Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, Risk Değerlendirme Araçları, COMPAS, Risk-ihtiyaç Modeli, Denetimli Serbestlik

Actuarial Risk Assessment Tools in the Criminal Justice System: A Discussion Through the Example of COMPAS

Abstract

For the proper conduct of criminal proceedings and for the execution of sentences to serve their intended purposes, it is essential to accurately identify the risks and needs of defendants and convicts. In this regard, actuarial risk assessment tools have been utilized in the criminal justice system for over fifty years. Over the past twenty-five years, it has become possible to use these tools in a computer-assisted manner. One such tool in use today is COMPAS. As a comprehensive set of psychological scales, COMPAS enables assessments by considering both static and dynamic risk factors, as well as the offender’s needs. Using this tool, determinations can be made regarding whether a defendant should be detained during trial, which punishment would be most appropriate, and whether conditional release is suitable. Despite its advantages, there are significant concerns regarding the use of this tool. In particular, claims that the program causes discrimination and violates the principles of equality of arms are still being debated. In our opinion, while it is possible to implement a similar program in Turkey, the Turkish criminal justice system is only suitable for utilizing such programs at the execution stage.

Keywords

Criminal Procedure, Risk-assessment Tools, COMPAS, Risk-Need Model, Probation

References

• Abanoz-Öztürk, Buket. Ceza Muhakemesinde Sanığın Mükerrer Suç İşleme Riskinin Hesaplanması: COMPAS Algoritması ve Adil Yargılanma Hakkı, Yapay Zekanın Cezai Sorumluluğu (Ed. Murat Balcı ve Hüseyin Aydın), Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, 2021, s. 81-100.
• Aizawa, Ken. “Cognition and Behavior”, Synthese, 194/11, 2017, s. 4269-4288.
• Angwin, Julia, Jeff Larson, Surya Mattu ve Lauren Kirchner. Machine Bias, 2016, https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
• Barber, Emily. “Navigating Miller v. Alabama with COMPAS: How Risk Assessment Instruments Square with a Meaningful Opportunity for Release”, National Lawyers Guild Review, 77/1 (2020), s. 1-37.
• Beriain, Inigo De Miguel. “Does the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentences Respect the Right to Due Process: A Critical Analysis of the Wisconsin v. Loomis Ruling”, Law, Probability and Risk, 17/1 (2018), s. 45-54.
• Bonta, James. Risk-needs Assesment and Treatment, Choosing Correctional Options that Work: Defining the Demand and Evaluating the Supply (Ed. A.T. Harland), Londra: Sage Publications, 1996.
• Bonta, James ve Stephen J. Wormith. Applying the Risk-need-responsivity Principles to Offender Assessment, What Works in Offender Rehabilitation: An Evidence Based Approach to Assessment and Treatment (Ed. Leam A. Craig, Louise Dixon ve Theresa A. Gannon), Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2013, s. 72-93.
• Brennan, Tim, William Dieterich, ve Beate Ehret. “Evaluating the Predictive Validity of the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment System”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36/1 (2009), s. 21-40.
• Brennan, Tim, William Dieterich, Emily J. Salisbury ve Patricia Van Voorhis. “Women's Pathways to Serious and Habitual Crime: A Person-Centered Analysis Incorporating Gender Responsive Factors”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39 (2012), s. 1481-1508.
• Centel, Nur. “İnsan Hakları Avrupa Mahkemesi Kararları Işığında Tutuklama Hukukuna Eleştirel Yaklaşım”, Marmara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Hukuk Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17/1-2 (2011), s. 49-93.
• Centel, Nur ve Hamide Zafer. Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 14. Baskı, İstanbul: Beta Yayınevi, 2017.
• Cooke, David J ve Christine Michie. “Limitations of Diagnostic Precision and Predictive Utility in the Individual Case: A Challenge for Forensic Practice”, Law and Human Behavior, C. 34/4, 2010, s. 259-274.
• Copas, John ve Peter Marshall. “The Offender Group Reconviction Scale, A Statistical Reconviction Score for Use by Probation Officers”, Applied Statistics, 47/1 (1998), s. 159-171.
• Deniz, K. Zülfikar. “Psikolojik Ölçme Aracı Uyarlama”, Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 40/1 (2007), s. 1-16.
• Erdoğan, Irmak. Yapay Zeka ve Profilleme Teknolojilerinin Ceza Muhakemesinde Kişisel Veri İşlenmesine Etkileri, 1. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, 2022.
• Equivant. Practicioner’s Guide to COMPAS’ Core, 2017, Son güncelleme: 05.11.2024, https://archive.epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/crim-justice/EPIC-16-06-23-WI-FOIA-201600805-COMPASPractionerGuide.pdf
• European Commission. Risk Assessment in Prison, Lüksemburg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021. Fass, Tracy L., Kirk Heilbrun, David Dematteo ve Ralph Fretz. “The LSI-R and the COMPAS: Validation Data on Two Risk-Needs Tools”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35/9 (2008), s. 1095-1108.
• Flores, Anthony W., Kristin Bechtel ve Christopher, T. Lowenkamp. “False Positives, False Negatives, and False Analyses: A Rejoinder to “Machine Bias: There’s Software Used Across the Country to Predict Future Criminals. And It’s Biased Against Blacks”, Federal Probation, 80/2 (2016), s. 38-46.
• Freeman, Katherine, “Algorithmic Injustice: How the Wisconsin Supreme Court Failed to Protect Due Process Rights in State v. Loomis”, North Carolina Journal of Law&Technology, 18/5 (2016), s. 75-106.
• Hart, Stephen D., Christine Michie ve David J. Cooke, “Precision of Actuarial Risk Assessment Instruments”, British Journal of Psychiatry, 190/49 (2007), s. 60-65.
• Gendrau, Paul, Tracy Little ve Claire Goggin. “A Meta-Analysis of the Predictors of Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works!”, Criminology, 34/4, 1996, s. 575-608.
• Gottfredson, Stephen D. ve Laura J. Moriarty, “Statistical Risk Assessment: Old Problems and New Applications”, Crime and Delinquency, 52/1 (2006), s. 178-200.
• Grove, William M., David Zald, Boyd Lebow, Beth E. Snitz ve Chad Nelson. “Clinical Versus Mechanical Prediction: A Meta-analysis”, Psychological Assessment, 12/1 (2000), s. 19-30.
• Hamilton, Melissa, “The Biased Algorithm: Evidence of Disparate Impact on Hispanics”, American Criminal Law Review, 56/4 (2019), s. 1553-1578.
• Hamilton, Melissa, “The Sexist Algorithm”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 37/2 (2019), s. 145-157.
• Hamilton, Melissa, “Judicial Gatekeeping on Scientific Validity with Risk Assessment Tools”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 38/3 (2020), s. 226-245.
• Imrey, Peter B. ve A. Philip Dawid, “Commentary on Statistical Assessment of Violence Recidivism Risk”, Statistics and Public Policy, 2/1 (2015), s. 25-42.
• Karabulat, Efe Can, Cezaların Etkinliği Bağlamında Türk Suç Siyaseti, 1. Baskı, Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2024.
• Karabulat, Efe Can, “Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi İçtihadında Delillerin Savunma ile Paylaşılmasından Sakınılması”, IV. Ceren Damar Bilim İnsanları Sempozyumu (Ed. Gülce Gümüşlü Tunçağıl vd.), 1. Baskı, Ankara: Yetkin Yayınevi, 2024, s. 371-405.
• Kern, Richard P. ve Meredith Farrar-Owens, “Sentencing Guidelines with Integrated Offender Risk Assessment”, Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16/3 (2004), s. 165-169.
• Michigan Department of Corrections, Administration and Use of COMPAS in the Presentence Investigation Report, Michigan, 2017.
• Monahan, John, “Risk Assessment in Sentencing”, Reforming Criminal Justice Volume 4: Punishment, Incarceration, and Release (Ed. Erik Luna), Phoenix: Arizona State University, 2017, s. 77-95.
• Özbek, Veli Özer, Koray Doğan ve Pınar Bacaksız. Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 16. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, 2023.
• Özgenç, İzzet, İnfaz Siyasetine İlişkin Muhtasar Öneriler, 12.10.2022, Son güncelleme: 21.12.2024, https://izzetozgenc.com/makale/infaz-siyasetine-iliskin-muhtasar-oneriler.
• Özgenç, İzzet. Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler, 20. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, 2024.
• Sapan, Oğuzhan, Ceza Muhakemesinde Yapay Zeka Kullanımı, 1. Baskı, Ankara: Adalet Yayınevi, 2024.
• Sawyer, Wendy ve Peter Wagner, Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie, Son güncelleme: 17.12.2024, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2024.html.
• Stevenson, Megan T. ve Christopher Slobogin, “Algorithmic Risk Assessments and the Double-edged Sword of Youth”, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 36/5 (2018), s. 638-656.
• Şahin, Cumhur ve Neslihan Göktürk, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 15. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, 2024. The Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence, Violence Intervention Partnership of Cumberland County, Ontario Domestic Assault Risk Assessment, Maine, 2019, Son güncelleme: 26.11.2024, https://dirigosafety.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/ODARA-guidelines-booklet-FINAL-x3.pdf.
• Tonry, Michael, “Predictions of Dangerousness in Sentencing: Deja Vu All over Again”, Crime and Justice: Review of Research, 48 (2018), s. 439-482.
• Ulenaers, Jasper, “The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Right to a Fair Trial: Towards a Robot Judge?”, Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 11/2, 2020, s. 1-38.
• Van Voorhis, Patricia, Emily M. Wright, Emily Salisbury ve Ashley Bauman. The Current Status of a Gender-Responsive Supplement Women’s Risk Factors and Their Contributions to Existing Risk/Needs”, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37 (2010), s. 261-288
• Villasenor, John ve Virginia Foggo, “Artificial Intelligence, Due Process, and Criminal Sentencing”, Michigan State Law Review, 1 (2020), s. 295-354.
• Washington, Anne L., “How to Argue with an Algorithm: Lessons from the COMPAS-ProPublica Debate”, Colorado Technology Law Journal, 17/1 (2018), s. 131-160.
• Yang, Min, Stephen C. P. Wong ve Jeremy Coid, “The Efficacy of Violence Prediction: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Nine Risk Assessment Tools”, Psychological Bulletin, 136/5 (2010), s. 740-767.
• Yenisey, Feridun ve Ayşe Nuhoğlu, Ceza Muhakemesi Hukuku, 11. Baskı, Ankara: Seçkin Yayınevi, 2023.
• Zhang, Sheldon X, Robert, E. L. Roberts ve David, Farabee, “An Analysis of Prisoner Reentry and Parole Risk Using COMPAS and Traditional Criminal History Measure”, Crime and Delinquency, 60/2 (2014), s. 167-192.