Artificial Intelligence (AI) is reshaping a variety of fields around the world, becoming a much more frequent presence in the justice system in particular. Despite AI’s unique ability to improve the speed of lengthy courtroom battles, there is significant concern surrounding AI’s fairness and sense of judgment in case sentencing and punishments.
Predictive policing, a more commonly used AI application, allows law enforcement to use data and records from previous cases to predict and prevent crimes before they even occur. This is a valuable tool in terms of preventing crimes before they become realities, but it can often lead to discrimination and bias against certain communities.
Another use of AI lies in the legal review process, with lawyers using AI to take time away from the hours allotted to review paperwork in preparation for each case. More specifically, this new AI tool allows this task to be accomplished in a fraction of the time it would typically take for a human to complete. AI can be used to enhance audio evidence, isolating background noise to clarify that of any suspects, and ultimately process them of the crime. Additionally, the system Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) assists judges in predicting the chances that a defendant will commit another crime, once again influencing the overall sentencing and the various biases surrounding them. Lastly, facial recognition is another common tool, identifying suspects or witnesses even beyond the justice system setting and within the courtroom. All of these tools, though they make the system much more efficient, have been discovered to be less accurate and show immense bias towards defendants of color and those of different backgrounds.
Moving forward, AI’s presence in the justice system is always going to continue to grow and become more of an issue. There is potential for AI to have a more active role in determining the punishments tailored to each individual, analyzing their background and profiles to transform the way the defendant is sentenced for the crime, turning the punishments into a chance for the defendant to begin a new life rather than assigning them a harsh sentence to pay for their crimes.
Most individuals are not supportive of these new AI tools being used in the justice system. The systems are often incorrect and biased, exacerbated by the fact that they are often developed on flawed data. For example, systems used to determine a defendant’s likelihood of recidivism have been shown to paint Black defendants as having a much higher risk of committing another crime compared to white defendants of the same crime who come from similar criminal backgrounds.
The major concern surrounding AI in general is accountability, but that is even more of a concern when a defendant’s future is in the hands of these AI machines in the courtroom. In a typical courtroom scenario, a defendant can appeal a decision if they do not agree with the judge’s ruling. If AI is serving as that judge in the courtroom, who is technically responsible for the ruling? Is it still possible for defendants to appeal a decision without the presence of a human judge in the courtroom?
Overall, is AI making a more efficient and fair justice system or is it simply exacerbating existing biases and inequalities? The justice system must work to strike a clear and careful balance to make sure that the use of technology in the courtroom improves the outcomes of cases without showing biases towards different races and neglecting human rights.
