301.pdf, 2003 June 20-2003 June 24

The Consequences of
Guilt by Association as an
Investigative Decision Rule

Elise A. Weaver,

dios Kent Rissmiller

Social Science and Policy Studies
Worcester Polytechnic Institute

&

George Richardson
Public Administration & Policy
University at Albany, SUNY

Nelson A.

Rockefeller

Oleg contact email:
of Public Affairs .
nd eweaver@wpi.edu

and Policy

Background

Substantive Insights

- Cole, David & Dempsey, James X.
(2002). Terrorism and the Constitution:
Sacrificing Civil Liberties in the Name of
National Security. NY: The New Press.

Background

Psychological Insight

_ Hammond, K.R. (1996).Human Judgment
and Social Policy: Irreducible
Uncertainty, Inevitable Error,
Unavoidable Injustice. NY: Oxford
University Press

Background

Initial System Dynamics Model

_ Weaver, E.A. & Richardson, G.P.
(2002).Threshold setting and the cycling
of a decision threshold. Presentation to
the 20th Conference of the System
Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy, July
23, 2002.

Definitions of Key Terms

¢ Signs of criminal activity
oP — criminal activities or plans by specific
| individuals
— individuals sending money earmarked
for criminal activity

Definitions of Key Terms

¢ Guilt by association
— recent contacts of the guilty
— friends of the guilty

— those financing humanitarian causes
conducted by same organization as the

guilty
— those sharing ideology of guilty
— those sharing ethnicity or race of guilty

Key Components

¢ Judgment rule:

— Relative weight on signs of individual
criminal activity vs. guilt by association

¢ Quality of judgment
— Sensitivity = guilty detected/ all guilty

— Specificity = innocents left alone/
all innocents

Key Components

¢« Stakeholder pressures:
— Lobby to increase investigative power

— Protests as check on unrestrained
investigative power

¢ Outlay of Resources:
— Cost effectiveness of investigation
— Results of congressional audits

Key Components
¢ Legal Issues:

— Secrecy and breaches of due process
— Resulting lawsuits

¢ Public Response
— Community support for investigation

— Chill or decreased sense of freedom of
expression

— Tolerance for security measures such
as wait times at the airport
Highly Effective Judgment Rule

Overlook Individual Search Individual

Actual Guilt

Truly} Truly
Innocent} Guilty

Perceived Guilt
Investigative

Threshold

Less Effective Judgment Rule

Overlook Individual | Search Individual

Actual Guilt

Truly} Truly
Innocent} Guilty

Perceived Guilt
Investigative

Threshold

Reference Modes

¢ Oscillation of investigative power
over time

¢ High weight on Guilt by Association
resulting in exponential growth in
resources required

¢ Constraints on protest and secrecy
of investigation leading to
exponential growth of resources

required and poor judgment efficacy

WPI

Regulation Sector

Be Community Tolerance — f )
for Security Measures Specificity = B
r _ \ Innocents Left Alone/«—
ry Civil Liberties « - Actual Innocents
ae. Protest:
oe ( "Chill" on Freedom of 2

j 5 Expression D

Net Power Weight on

Change Power to

investigate n Guilt by
eS ead without ~~ Association

~ t+ regulation Relative Power
Security Normal Power RB

Conscious Lobby Sensitivity =

F Audits by ~ Guilty Detected/
| Congress a Actual Guil

WPI
Resource Allocation Sector

Contacts
Resources Spent Investigated per
a’ to Investigate | _A Person
<Weight on R Contacts
Guilt by YN Resources Requested

Association> SS qa B

Y +
\ Resources 4-9

————ooea to. Resources Allocated

a Weight on Signs ww by “
_ of Criminal Resources Spent
Activity to Gather Signs \. B
* NK of Individual Audits by
Criminal Activity Congress

Investigation of Contacts

<Contacts Fraction Perceived
Investigated per Innocent

Person> )

Number
Number of Perceived
Investigated

that are
Investigated
R Fraction
Perceived Guilty
Number
Perceived Guilty
that are
Investigated

Community Response

<Number of
Innocents =
Investigated>
\; Willingness of R ;
Public to Share 6 price P
Information amere
<Contacts 7
Investigated ver 7 Individual
Person> Requirement ¥ Criminal
for Secrecy WA Activity

<Resources Spent to Gather
Signs of Individual Criminal
Activity>
Legal Oversight

Specificity =
Innocents Left Alone /

Actual Innocents
B
- [

Number of
Lawsuits
- Ne
"Chill" on Breaches of
Freedom of Due Process
Expression «Requirement

for Secrecy>

WPI
Judgment Rule Efficacy

Accuracy from

. Weight on
Guilt by ; Guilt by
Association Association

ie
Actual Accuracy

(* :

Accuracy of Weight on

Guilt based on signs of
i rimina

Signs of Activity

Criminal Activity

Judgment Rule Efficacy

Sensitivity =
Guilty Investigated/

a Actual Guilty
Actual Accuracy /

Threshold or cutoff of
+ evidence for guilt

: Specificity = +
; Innocents Left Alone/

Actual Innocents

Testing the System

¢ Compare heavy to light
weight on Guilt by
Association

¢ Compare stingy congress to
expansive congress with
respect to resources

¢ Compare constraints on
protest and secrecy of
investigation to open society

Testing the System

¢ Measure sensitivity and
specificity

¢ Measure power of
investigative arm

¢ Measure resources required
to run investigations

Conclusions

¢ Pay serious attention to
sensitivity and specificity as
ee metrics of quality of
ee investigation

¢ Allocate resources liberally
¢ Allocate power conservatively

¢ Keep checks and balances in
place

Back to the Top \ { I |