[skybrian]

Okay, I think I see what you mean now. It's a bit hard to see since you're so focused on gender bias.

I think you're right that these factors, while answering fairly objective questions, reinforce bias due to things like prior convictions. Once someone starts down this path, they get treated worse by the system based on history. Even though they did their time, they aren't starting fresh.

Still, I think it's an improvement (to a very flawed system) because it's not adding new bias. It also doesn't seem practical to reexamine previous convictions to see if they were fair when setting bail.

[adekok]

> Okay, I think I see what you mean now. It's a bit hard to see

I must admit to not understanding how it's difficult to see the correlation. If bail is set on factors X, Y, and Z, AND those factors are shown to be biased, then by definition, bail is also biased.

> since you're so focused on gender bias.

That's just a weird statement to make. The research shows bias and I quoted the research... how does that make me "so focused" on gender bias?

> it's not adding new bias.

That is a good point, but continuing existing bias is a serious problem.

[skybrian]

The logic behind this is that any bias resulting in unjust convictions will later also cause bias when setting bail. It seems like making sure unjust convictions don't happen is probably the more important of the two? And fixing unjust convictions would also fix the issue with setting bail.