Biased human prosecutors carry an unearned exemption from nondiscrimination scrutiny.

Evidence

We have three rejoinders. First, if there are disparities, these need to be documented. The fact that legal technology might not be able to correct the disparities does not mean that it should not be used to document them. Second, if the algorithm described above violates some principle of nondiscrimination, then it must be the case that the attorneys who caused the disparities in the historical record also violated a principle of nondiscrimination. Given this, it does not make sense to ban the former, which is transparent in its quest for nondiscrimination, and allow the latter, which is opaque in its goals: after all, prosecutors are likely not aware that they are biased in their decision-making, even if the outcomes suggest that they are. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1208

Categorization

• XREF: Connects directly to the reader’s sincere-conviction-vs-measured-bias gap: prosecutors profess neutrality while outcomes show bias, mirroring the explicit-vs-implicit divergence theme throughout this book.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1208