logo czasopisma

Articles

Vol. 63 No. 4 (2026): Law&Social Bonds

Models of AI Use in the Judiciary

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36128/afs2zv88
Submitted
10 December 2025
Published
24-09-2026

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is entering new areas of social life. It is therefore not surprising that it is also becoming present in the judiciary. However, its development in this field is not uniform across the world, which has led to the emergence of three different models of AI use in the judiciary. The criteria for grouping these models are, on the one hand, the role and participation of the algorithm in the decision-making process and, on the other hand, the role of the judge in this process. These criteria have led to the identification of three basic models, namely the active, auxiliary and preventive models. The models were selected on the basis of research on countries where the use of AI in the judiciary is currently at a high level, i.e. China, Brazil and the US. The paper presents the operation of each model on the basis of specific examples of algorithms operating in the judiciary. The key research methods are the theoretical-legal and dogmatic-legal methods.

References

  1. Alemán Aróstegui, Lorena. „El uso de RisCanvi en la toma de decisiones penitenciarias." Estudios Penales y Criminológicos 44 (2023): 1–43. https://revistas.usc.gal/index.php/epc/article/view/8884.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Andrés-Pueyo, Antonio, Karin Arbach-Lucioni, and Santiago Redondo. „A New Tool for Assessing Risk for Violence in Prison and Recidivism." In Handbook of Recidivism Risk/Needs Assessment Tools, edited by Jay P. Singh, Daryl G. Kroner, J. Stephen Wormith, Sarah L. Desmarais, Zachary Hamilton, 255–268. Hoboken: Wiley Blackwell, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119184256.ch13.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Brennan, Tim, William Dieterich, and Beate Ehret. „Evaluating the Predictive Validity of the COMPAS Risk and Needs Assessment System." Criminal Justice and Behavior 36, no. 1 (2009): 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854808326545.
    View in Google Scholar
  4. Chen, Stephen. „China's court AI reaches every corner of justice system, advising judges and streamlining punishment." South China Morning Post, 13 July 2022. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3185140/chinas-court-ai-reaches-every-corner-justice-system-advising.
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Cross, Grenville. „Adopting AI: China's judiciary shows the way forward." China Daily Hong Kong, 26 June 2023. https://www.chinadailyhk.com/hk/article/337728.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Eticas Foundation. Can AI Solve Gender Violence? Auditing the Use of AI to Assess Risk. The Case of VioGén. 2022. https://eticasfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/Eticas_Audit_of_VioGen.pdf.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Lansing, Sharon. New York State COMPAS-Probation Risk and Need Assessment Study: Examining the Recidivism Scale's Effectiveness and Predictive Accuracy. Albany: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2012. https://www.criminaljustice.ny.gov/crimnet/ojsa/opca/compas_probation_report_2012.pdf.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Lau, Tim. „Predictive Policing Explained." Brennan Center for Justice, 1 April 2020. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/predictive-policing-explained.
    View in Google Scholar
  9. Mohler, George O., Martin B. Short, Sean Malinowski, Mark Johnson, George E. Tita, Andrea L. Bertozzi, and P. Jeffrey Brantingham. „Randomized Controlled Field Trials of Predictive Policing." Journal of the American Statistical Association 110, no. 512 (2015): 1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2015.1077710.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Reiling, Dory, and Straton Papagianneas. „Lessons from China's Smart Court Reform." International Journal for Court Administration 16 (2025): 1–12. https://iacajournal.org/articles/679/files/6810811894022.pdf.
    View in Google Scholar
  11. Rho, Saeyoung, Junzhe Zhang, and Elias Bareinboim. „Partial Identification Approach to Counterfactual Fairness Assessment." arXiv, 30 September 2025. https://www.arxiv.org/pdf/2510.00163.
    View in Google Scholar
  12. Rudin, Cynthia, Caroline Wang, and Beau Coker. „The Age of Secrecy and Unfairness in Recidivism Prediction." Harvard Data Science Review 2, no. 1 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.6ed64b30.
    View in Google Scholar
  13. Shi, Changqing, Tania Sourdin, and Bin Li. „The Smart Court – A New Pathway to Justice in China?" International Journal for Court Administration 12, no. 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367.
    View in Google Scholar
  14. Stępień-Załucka, Beata. AI and the Exercise of Judicial Authority ex Machina. Towards Efficient Artificial Judiciary in a Democratic State. Murcia: Laborum, 2025.
    View in Google Scholar
  15. Storbeck, Majsa. Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Policing: Risks and Challenges. Brussels: EUCPN, 2022.
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Tahura, Ummey, and Niloufer Selvadurai. „The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: The Example of China." International Journal of Law, Ethics, and Technology, no. 4 (2023): 1–20. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368930076.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Washington, Anne L. „How to Argue with an Algorithm: Lessons from the COMPAS-ProPublica Debate." Colorado Technology Law Journal 17, no. 1 (2019): 1–37. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3357874.
    View in Google Scholar
  18. Wisser, Leah. „Pandora's Algorithmic Black Box: The Challenges of Using Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Sentencing." American Criminal Law Review 56, no. 4 (2019): 1811–1832.
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Wodecki, Ben. „AI Helps Judges Decide Court Cases in China." AI Business, 18 February 2022. https://aibusiness.com/verticals/ai-helps-judges-decide-court-cases-in-china.
    View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.