[daveguy]

That does sound like a good argument against it -- adding punishment without evidence... Could they argue that they're reducing sentences for those less likely to repeat? If they don't see "evidence" that the person will repeat then they give a reduced sentence (kindof like early parole). Still unethical crap because it pushes a race-based agenda (consciously or unconsciously). I'd say there's no difference, and would agreewith your argument. Also, not a lawyer. Technically they don't ask "are you black". They ask whether or not you had a parent incarcerated -- good for propagating a broken status quo. That question almost seems designed to "increase punishment without evidence". Regardless there shouldn't be any private algorithm deciding this and any public algorithm should be well scrutinized and validated for accuracy.

One thing is certain -- the federal government needs to shut these sentencing analysis companies down. At the very least heavy public audits. I'd say even libertarians would agree this is the definition of something that should be regulated.