artificial intelligence; criminal law; right to a fair trial; adjudication; transparency; fairness; AI Act; legal certainty; equity; independence; impartiality; business secrecy; effectiveness
Abstract :
[en] Artificial intelligence (hereafter: AI) is impacting all sectors of society these days, including the criminal justice area. AI has indeed become an important tool in this area, whether for citizens seeking justice, legal practitioners or police and judicial authorities. While there is already a large body of literature on the prediction and detection of crime, this article focuses on the current and future role of AI in the adjudication of criminal cases. A distinction will be made between AI systems that facilitate adjudication and those that could, in part or wholly, replace human judges. At each step, we will give some concrete examples and evaluate what are, or could be, the advantages and disadvantages of such systems when used in criminal courts.
Research Center/Unit :
Cité - CITE
Disciplines :
Law, criminology & political science: Multidisciplinary, general & others Criminal law & procedure
Author, co-author :
Franssen, Vanessa ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit pénal et procédure pénale
Berrendorf, Alyson ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de droit > Droit pénal et procédure pénale
Language :
English
Title :
The Use of AI Tools in Criminal Courts: Justice Done and Seen To Be Done?
Publication date :
November 2021
Journal title :
Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal
ISSN :
0223-5404
eISSN :
1951-6312
Publisher :
Maklu Publishers, Belgium
Special issue title :
Artificial Intelligence, Big Data and Automated Decision-Making in Criminal Justice
Abiteboul S and G’Sell F, ‘Les algorithmes pourraient-ils remplacer les juges?’ Le Big data et le droit (Dalloz 2019) accessed 25 October 2021
Agarwal A, Beygelzimer A, Dudík M, Langford J and Wallach H, ‘A Reductions Approach to Fair Classification’ (PMLR, 2018) 1 accessed 21 October 2021
Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D and Lampos V, ‘Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective’ (PeerJ Computer Science, 24 October 2016) accessed 14 July 2021
Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S and Kirchner L, ‘Machine Biais – There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks’ (ProPublica, 23 May 2016) accessed 5 July 2021
Baraniuk C, ‘Durham Police AI to help with custody decisions’ (BBC, 10 May 2017) accessed 14 July 2021
Barthe E, ‘L’intelligence artificielle et le droit’ (2017) 54 Information, données & documents 23
Bayamlioglu E and Leenes R, The “rule of law” implications of data-driven decision-making: a techno-regulatory perspective’ (2018) Law, Innov Technol 295
Benesty M, ‘Supra Legem’ accessed 5 July 2021
Brauneis R and Goodman E, ‘Algorithmic Transparency for the Smart City’ (2018) 20 Yale J. L. & Tech. 103
Brennan-Marquez K, ‘Plausible Cause: Explanatory Standards in the Age of Powerful Machines’ (2017) 70 Vand. L. Rev. 1249
Burrell J, ‘How the Machine Thinks: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms’ (2016) Big Data & Society 1
Carlson A, ‘The Need for Transparency in the Age of Predictive Sentencing Algorithms’ (2017) 103 Iowa L. Rev. 303
Case Crunch, ‘Lawyer Challenge’ accessed 14 July 2021
Case Law Analytics, ‘Analysez votre risque juridique grâce à l’IA’ accessed 5 July 2021
Commission européenne pour l’efficacité de la justice, ‘Lignes directrices sur la conduite du changement vers la Cyberjustice’ (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL, 7 December 2016) accessed 23 June 2021
Consultative Committee of European Judges, ‘Justice et technologies de l’information’, Opinion No 14, 2011
Danziger S, Levav J and Avnaim-Pesso L, ‘Extraneous factors in judicial decision’ (PNAS, 26 April 2011) accessed 5 July 2021
De Leval G and Georges F, Droit judiciaire, t. 1, Institutions judiciaires et éléments de compétence (Larcier 2014)
Desmoulin Canselier S, ‘L’emprise des algorithmes – A propos de Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society. The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information’ (La vie des idées, 20 June 2018) accessed 14 July 2021
Deville R, Sergeyssels N and Middag C, ‘Basic concepts of AI for legal scholars’ in De Bruyne J and Vanleenhove C (eds), Law & Artificial Intelligence (Intersentia 2021)
Dressel J and Farid H, ‘The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism’ (Science Advances, 17 January 2018) accessed 5 July 2021
European Commission, ‘Proposal for a regulation of the European parliament and of the council laying down harmonized rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts’, COM(2021), Brussels
Faggella D, ‘AI for Crime Prevention and Detection – 5 Current Applications’ (Emerj, 2 February 2019) accessed 14 July 2021
Freeman K, ‘Algorithmic Injustice: How the Wisconsin Supreme Court Failed to Protect Due Process Rights in State v. Loomis’, 2016 18 N.C. J.L. & Tech. On. 75
Gérard L and Mougenot D, ‘Titre 1 – Justice robotisée & droits fondamentaux’ in Hubin J-B, Jacquemin H and Michaux B (eds), Le juge et l’algorithme: juges augmentés ou justice diminuée ? (1st ed., CRIDS 2019)
Godefroy L, ‘L’office du juge à l’épreuve de l’algorithme’ in Clavier J-P (ed.), L’algorithmisation de la justice (Larcier 2020)
Gosavi S and Kavathekar S, A Survey on Crime Occurrence Detection and prediction Techniques’ (2018) 8 Int. j. eng. technol. manag. appl. sci. 1405
Grupp M, ‘How to Build a Robot Lawyer’ in Hartung M, Bues M-M and Halbleib G (eds), Legal Tech. How Technology is Changing the Legal World. A Practioner’s Guide (Beck-Hart-Nomos 2018)
Guillaud H, ‘La justice prédictive (2/3): prédictions et régulations’ (Le Monde, 13 September 2017) accessed 5 July 2021
Hao K, ‘AI still doesn’t have the common sense to understand human language’ (MIT Technology Review, 31 January 2020) accessed 14 July 2021
Hérard F, ‘Technologies de prédiction du crime: Palantir a scruté les citoyens de la Nouvelle-Orléans en secret pendant 6 ans’ (TV5Monde, 3 March 2018) accessed 14 July 2021
Holland Michel A, ‘Known Unknowns: Data Issues and Military Autonomous Systems’ (2021) United Nations Institute for disarmament research 1
Hubert M, ‘Les algorithmes prédictifs au service du juge: vers une déshumanisation de la justice pénale ? Regards critiques de juges d’instruction’ (Master thesis, Catholic University of Leuven 2020)
Huseinzade N, ‘Algorithm transparency: How to Eat the Cake and Have It Too’ (European Law Blog, 27 January 2021) accessed 21 July 2021
Karls E, La Nguyen E, Spika D and Vega K, ‘A Demonstration Analysis of the Correctional Assessment and Intervention Analysis (CAIS)’, Report prepared for the National Council on Crime and Delinquency (University of Wisconsin Madison, 2018) accessed 14 July 2021
Katz D M, Bommarito II M J and Blackman J, ‘A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States’ (PLoS ONE, 12 April 2017) accessed 14 July 2021
Luchtman L, ‘Ne bis in idem at the Interface of Administrative and Criminal Law Enforcement – Sufficiently Connected in Substance, Time and Space?’ (2019) 90 Revue internationale de droit pénal 335
Marique E and Strowel A, ‘Gouverner par la loi ou les algorithmes: de la norme générale de comportement au guidage rapproché des conduites’ (2017) 10 Dalloz IP/IT 517
Meneceur Y, ‘Les systèmes judiciaires européens à l’épreuve du développement de l’intelligence artificielle’ (2018) 2 Revue pratique de la prospective de l’innovation 13
Ni Loideain N, ‘Not So Grand: The Big Brother Watch ECtHR Grand Chamber Judgment’ (Information Law and Policy Centre, 28 May 2021) accessed 25 October 2021
Mine B and Robert L, ‘Recidive na een rechterlijke beslissing. Nationale cijfers op basis van het Centraal Strafregister’/’La récidive après une décision judiciaire. Des chiffres nationaux sur la base du Casier judiciaire central’(2015) Final report, Institut National de Criminalistique et de Criminologie 1 accessed 25 October 2021
O’Neil C, Algorithmes – La Bombe à retardement (Les Arènes 2018)
O’Sullivan C, ‘Interpretability in Machine Learning’ (Towards data science, 21 October 2020) accessed 25 October 2021
—— ‘What is Algorithm Fairness? An introduction to the field that aims at understanding and preventing bias in machine learning models’ (Towards data science, 5 March 2021) accessed 25 October 2021
Oosterloo S and Van Schie G, ‘The Politics and Biases of the “Crime Anticipation System” of the Dutch Police’ in Bates J, Clough P D, Jäschke R and Otterbacher J (eds), Proceedings of the International Workshop on Bias in Information, Algorithms, and Systems (CEUR Workshop Proceedings 2018) 30
Ortegon M, ‘Dismantling the Black Box: Why Governments Should Demand Algorithmic Accountability’ (Brown Political Review, 30 March 2019) accessed 25 July 2021
Patil R, Kacchi M, Gavali P and Pimparia K, ‘Crime Pattern Detection, Analysis & Prediction using Machine Learning’ (2020) 7 IRJET 119
Perry W L, McInnis B, Price C C, Smith S and Hollywood J S, Predictive Policing: The Role of Crime Forecasting in Law Enforcement Operations (Rand Corp, 2013) accessed 5 July 2021
Pessach D and Shmueli E, ‘Algorithmic Fairness’ (Cornell University, 21 January 2020) accessed 21 October 2021
Poinas E, Le tribunal des algorithme. Juger à l’ère des nouvelles technologies (Berger Levrault 2019)
Predictice, ‘Au Cœur de la justice’ accessed 5 July 2021
PredPol, ‘What. Where. When’ accessed 14 July 2021
Shah N, Bhagat N and Shah M, ‘Crime forecasting: a machine learning and computer vision approach to crime prediction prevention’ (2021) 4 VCIBA 9
Smuha N, Ahmed-Rengers E, Harkens A, Li W, MacLaren J, Piselli R and Yeung K, ‘How the EU can achieve Legally Trustworthy AI: A Response to the European Commission’s Proposal for an Artificial Intelligence Act’ (SSRN, 5 August 2021) accessed 19 October 2021
Surden H, ‘Values Embedded in Legal Artificial Intelligence’ (2017) Univ. Colo. Law Legal Studies 5
Vaele M and Zuiderveen Borgesius F, ‘Demystifying the Draft EU Artificial Intelligence, Analysing the good, the bad, and the unclear elements of the proposed approach’, (2021) 22 Computer L. Rev. Int. 97
Van Brakel R. E, ‘Pre-emptive Big Data Surveillance and its (Dis)empowering Consequences: The Case of Predictive Policing’ in van der Sloot B, Broeders D and Schrijvers E (eds), Exploring the Boundaries of Big Data (Amsterdam University Press 2016)
Van den Branden A, Les robots à l’assaut de la justice (1st ed., Bruylant 2019)
Vogl R, ‘Legal Tech in the USA’ in Hartung M, Bues M-M and Halbleib G (eds), Legal Tech. How Technology is Changing the Legal World. A Practioner’s Guide (Beck-Hart-Nomos 2018)
Wallach H, ‘Big Data, Machine Learning, and the Social Sciences: Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency’ (Hanna Wallach, 19 December 2014) and accessed 15 July 2021
Winston A, ‘New Orleans ends its Palantir predictive policing program’ (TheVerge, March 2018) accessed 14 July 2021
Wolters Kluwer, ‘Legal Insights’ accessed 14 July 2021
Yang Y, Yang Y and Fei Ju S, ‘China seeks glimpse of citizens’ future with crime predicting AI’ (Financial Times, 23 July 2017) accessed 14 July 2021
Zouinar M, ‘Evolutions de l’Intelligence Artificielle: quels enjeux pour l’activité humaine et la relation Humain-Machine au travail ?’ (Open Edition Journals, 15 April 2020) accessed 21 June 2021
