AI redefines criminal justice decision making

AI is increasingly being considered for use in criminal justice systems, raising significant governance and accountability questions. Experts warn that, despite growing adoption, there are currently no clear statutory rules governing the deployment of AI in criminal proceedings, underscoring the need for safeguards, transparency, and human accountability in high-stakes decisions.

Within this context, AI is being framed primarily as a support tool rather than a decision maker. Government advisers argue that AI could assist judges, police, and justice officials by structuring data, drafting reports, and supporting risk assessments, while final decisions on sentencing and release remain firmly in human hands.

However, concerns persist about the reliability of AI systems in legal settings. The risk of inaccuracies, or so-called hallucinations, in which systems generate incorrect or fabricated information, is particularly problematic when AI outputs could influence judicial outcomes or public safety.

The debate is closely linked to wider sentencing reforms aimed at reducing prison populations. Proposals include phasing out short custodial sentences, expanding alternatives such as community service and electronic monitoring, and increasing the relevance of AI-supported risk assessments.

At the same time, AI tools are already being used in parts of the justice system for predictive analytics, case management, and legal research, often with limited oversight. This gap between practice and regulation has intensified calls for clearer standards and disclosure requirements.

Proponents also highlight potential efficiency gains. AI could help ease administrative burdens on courts and police by automating routine tasks and analysing large volumes of data, freeing professionals to focus on judgment and oversight.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy? If so, ask our Diplo chatbot!