Objectivity and accountability in migration control using risk assessment tools

In recent years immigration control has seen an increase in the implementation of risk assessment technology. According to proponents, such technologies would lead to more objective decision-making compared with the discretionary decisions made by street-level bureaucrats. However, because empirical...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: Dekkers, Tim (VerfasserIn)
Beteiligte: Woude, Maartje Amalia Hermina van der 1980- ; Koulish, Robert E.
Medienart: Elektronisch Aufsatz
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2019
In: European journal of criminology
Jahr: 2019, Band: 16, Heft: 2, Seiten: 237-254
Online-Zugang: Vermutlich kostenfreier Zugang
Volltext (Resolving-System)
Journals Online & Print:
Lade...
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway
Schlagwörter:
Accountability
Discretion
Migration control
Risk assessment
Technology
Migrationskontrolle
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:In recent years immigration control has seen an increase in the implementation of risk assessment technology. According to proponents, such technologies would lead to more objective decision-making compared with the discretionary decisions made by street-level bureaucrats. However, because empirical research on risk assessment technology is limited, it is not quite clear how risk assessment technology in migration control impacts the decision-making process and to what extent it does make the decision-making process more objective. This article aims to shine a light on this issue by making use of a case study of Amigo-boras, a smart camera system used by the Royal Netherlands Marechaussee (RNM) for migration control purposes. Qualitative data show that Dutch immigration officers are still able to exercise discretion in the execution of their tasks, placing doubt on claims to objectivity. This finding is confirmed in quantitative data based on a US case study. Although quantitative data on the decision-making process would be able to show if these doubts were justified, the RNM has no such data on the outcomes and selection process using Amigo-boras. This information gap raises new issues regarding the objectivity of the selection process and the individual accountability of RNM officers.
ISSN:1741-2609
DOI:10.1177/1477370818771831