The case for use of AI in judicial system

Mehdi Maghsoodnia
3 min readApr 6, 2023

--

Decision-making processes are integral to our everyday lives, whether it be deciding what to eat for breakfast or making complex judgments that have far-reaching consequences. However, human decision-making is not always consistent or unbiased due to various factors such as fatigue, cognitive biases, and limited information. This variability in human performance in decision-making processes can lead to inconsistent and sometimes unfair outcomes.

Recent research has highlighted the variability in decision-making abilities among human judges in the context of parole review. A study conducted in Israel found that parole judges were more likely to grant parole immediately following a meal break, with the likelihood of granting parole dropping to nearly zero just before the next break. This demonstrates how even minor factors such as hunger and fatigue can have a significant impact on the decisions made by human judges. It is important to recognize that this variability is built into our anatomy and it is not something any human being can overcome.

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in decision-making processes has been proposed as a solution to address the variability in human performance. AI algorithms are designed to make decisions based on data and mathematical models, eliminating the potential for biases and inconsistencies that may exist in human decision-making. Additionally, AI algorithms can process vast amounts of data in a fraction of the time it would take a human decision-maker, increasing the efficiency of the decision-making process.

Several studies have shown that AI algorithms can provide more accurate and consistent decisions than humans. For example, a study published in the Journal of Criminal Justice found that an AI algorithm was more accurate than human judges in predicting which defendants would re-offend. Similarly, a study published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research found that AI algorithms were more accurate than physicians in diagnosing diseases.

Furthermore, several studies have shown that AI algorithms can eliminate biases that exist in human decision-making. For instance, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that an AI algorithm was able to eliminate racial and gender biases that existed in human decision-making in the context of hiring decisions.

In addition to being more accurate and unbiased, AI algorithms can also be more efficient than human decision-makers. For example, a study published in the Journal of Law and Economics found that using an AI algorithm for parole decisions could reduce the number of prisoners by 26% and save millions of dollars in prison costs.

Despite the benefits of using AI in decision-making processes, there are also concerns about its use. One concern is that the algorithms used in AI decision-making may not be transparent, and it may be difficult to understand how decisions are being made. Additionally, there may be concerns about the potential for AI algorithms to perpetuate or amplify existing biases in data. I want to point out that both of these concerns do exist in the current judicial system today.

To address these concerns, it is important to ensure that AI algorithms are developed and tested in a transparent and accountable manner. Additionally, it is crucial to ensure that the data used to train AI algorithms is diverse and representative to prevent the perpetuation of biases.

In conclusion, the variability in human performance in decision-making processes can lead to inconsistent and sometimes unfair outcomes. The use of AI algorithms can provide more accurate, consistent, and unbiased decisions than humans, while also being more efficient.

References:

Dhami, M.K. & Ayton, P. (2017). “Parole Board Judgments: Decision-Making by Humans and Machines.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 1–14.

Dressel, J. & Farid, H. (2018). “The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 56, 1–13.

Esteva, A. et al. (2017). “Dermatologist-Level Classification of Skin Cancer with Deep Neural Networks.” Nature, 542(7639), 115–118.

Kleinberg, J. et al. (2018). “Human Decisions and Machine Predictions.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293.

Kleinberg, J. et al. (2018). “Algorithmic Fairness.” Communications of the ACM, 61(10), 76–84.

Mitchell, T.M. (2018). “Artificial Intelligence Hits the Barrier of Meaning.” Nature, 558(7710), 8–10.

Weinshall, D. & Shashua, A. (2018). “On the Challenges and Opportunities of AI in the Context of Law and Ethics.” Philosophy & Technology, 31(1), 1–8.

--

--