Abstract
The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is still in its infancy, but its potentials and dangers are discussed controversially. The legal sector will be affected by the AI-driven technological evolution, too. There are possible advantages of the use of AI in this context: sentencing decisions might become more uniform and consistent, proceedings shorter and less expensive, human judges might be relieved from workload and could focus more on severe and complex criminal law cases. In a nutshell: the functional capability of the criminal justice system might benefit from an “algorithmic boost” of efficiency. The temptation to compensate the problem of limited judicial resources and procedural delays by using machines with almost infinite working capacity might become irresistible. From a human rights perspective, however, it is questionable if “robot judges” assisting or even replacing human judges would be permissible in criminal law with its grave consequences for the individual defendant´s life. We will address this question with regard to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), analyzing the ban of inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 3 ECHR), the principle of fair trial (Art. 6 (1) ECHR), the principle of legality (Art. 7 ECHR), the protection of privacy (Art. 8 ECHR) and the ban of discrimination (Art. 14 ECHR)—bearing in mind that the outcome of a legal assessment strongly depends on the (hitherto unclear) concrete shape AI-based sentencing systems might take in the future. Nonetheless, we will also outline potential countermeasures like the use of explainable, transparent AI. The article concludes with a plea for a robust legal culture that is focused on improving sentencing practice through processes of deliberation and experimentation (which might also include technological experiments) rather than replacing it with technology solutions that put humans increasingly out of the loop.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The acronym stands for “Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions.”.
- 2.
Art. 1 of the Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR contains a general prohibition of discrimination that encompassed the equal enjoyment of every right set forth by law. However, the Protocol has only been ratified by 20 member states so far (inter alia not by France, Germany, the UK).
References
Aebi, M.F., Caneppele, S., Harrendorf, S., Hashimoto, Y.Z., Jehle, J.-M., Khan, T.S., Kühn, O., Lewis, C., Molnar, L., Smit, P., Þórisdóttir, R. and the ESB Network of National Correspondents (2021). European sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics—2021 (6 ed.). Göttingen University Press: Göttingen.
Alfaia Sampaio, E., Seixas, J.J. & Gomes, P.J. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and the judicial ruling. Themis Competition 2019, Semi-Final D, Team Portugal I. https://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/17916/TEAM%20PORTUGAL%20I%20TH%202019%20D.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2022.
Alufaisan, Y., Marusich, L. R., Bakdash, J. Z., Zhou, Y. & Kantarcioglu, M. (2021). Does explainable artificial intelligence improve human decision-making? In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(8), 6618–6626. https://www.ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/16819. Accessed 20 April 2022.
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S. & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing. Accessed 22 November 2021.
Bagaric, M., Hunter, D. & Stobbs, N. (2020). Erasing the bias against using artificial intelligence to predict future criminality. Algorithms are color blind and never tire. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 88, 1037–1082.
Bagaric, M., Svilar, J., Bull, M., Hunter, D. and Stobbs, N. (2021). The solution to the pervasive bias and discrimination in the criminal justice. Transparent artificial intelligence. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3795911. Accessed 22 November 2021.
Bogdan, S. (2020). Country Report Romania. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union (Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 427–453.
Bontrager, S., Barrick, K., & Stupi, E. (2013). Gender and sentencing. Meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 16, 349–372.
Botha, H. (2009). Human dignity in comparative perspective. Stellenbosch Law Review, 20, 171–220.
Brayne, S. & Christin, A. (2021). Technologies of crime prediction. Reception of algorithms in policing and criminal courts. Social Problems, 68, 608–624
Burrell, J. (2016). How the Machine ‘Thinks’. Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3, 1–12.
Butz, F., Christoph, S., Sommerer, L., Harrendorf, S., Kaspar, J. & Höffler, K. (2021). Automatisierte Risikoprognosen im Kontext von Bewährungsentscheidungen. Bewährungshilfe, 68, 241–259.
Bygrave, L.A. (2020). Machine learning, cognitive sovereignty and data protection rights with respect to automated decisions. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3721118. Accessed 22 November 2020.
Carlson, A.M. (2017). The need for transparency in the age of predictive sentencing algorithms. Iowa Law Review, 103, 303-329.
Chander, A. (2017). The racist algorithm? Michigan Law Review, 115, 1023–1045.
Chen, S. (2021). Chinese scientists develop AI ‘prosecutor’ that can press its own charges. South China Morning Post, 26 December 2021. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3160997/chinese-scientists-develop-ai-prosecutor-can-press-its-own. Accessed 24 January 2022.
Christin, A. (2019). Predictive algorithms and criminal sentencing. In: Bessner D and Guilhot N (eds.) The Decisionist Imagination. Sovereignty, Social Science, and Democracy in the 20th Century, Berghahn Books: New York, 272–294.
Commissioner for Human Rights. (2019). Unboxing artificial intelligence. 10 steps to protect Human Rights. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/unboxing-artificial-intelligence-10-steps-to-protect-human-rights-reco/1680946e64. Accessed 22 November 2021.
Committee of Experts on Internet Intermediaries (MSI-NET). (2018). Algorithms and human rights. Study on the human rights dimensions of automated data processing techniques and possible regulatory implications. Council of Europe study, DGI(2017)12. https://rm.coe.int/algorithms-and-human-rights-study-on-the-human-rights-dimension-of-aut/1680796d10. Accessed 3 February 2022.
Council of Europe. (2021). EU accession to the ECHR. https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-intergovernmental-cooperation/accession-of-the-european-union-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights. Accessed 24 January 2022.
Cyphert, A.B. (2020). Reprogramming recidivism. The First Step Act and algorithmic prediction of risk. Seton Hall Law Review, 51, 331–381.
Danaher, J. (2020). Welcoming robots into the moral circle: A defence of ethical behaviourism. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2023–2049.
Deeks, A. (2019). The judicial demand for explainable artificial intelligence. Columbia Law Review, 119, 1829–1850.
Dressel, J. & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4.
Duwe, G. & Kim, K. (2017). Out with the old and in with the new? An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms to predict recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28, 570–600.
Duwell, M. (2014). Human Dignity: Concept, Discussions, Philosophical Perspectives: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. In: Duwell, M., Braarvig, J., Brownsword, R. & Mieth, D. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook on Human Dignity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–50.
Dymitruk, M. (2019). The right to a fair trial in automated civil proceedings. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 13, 27-44.
Elsner, B., Aebi, M.F., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Gillieron, G., Hakeri, H., Jehle, J.-M., Killias, M., Lewis, C., Peters, J., Roth, E., Smit, P., Sobota, P., Turkovic, K., Wade, M. & Zila, J. (2008). The Criminal Justice Approach: Case Examples. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 14, 123-132.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018). European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems and their environment. https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c. Accessed 22 November 2021.
European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (2021). Overview 1959–2020 ECHR. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592020_ENG.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2022.
European Criminal Policy Institute (2020). Category model for the harmonisation of criminal sanctions in Europe. In Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union – Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 707–742.
Fair Trials (2020). Regulating artificial intelligence for use in criminal justice systems in the EU. Policy paper. https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/RegulatingArtificialIntelligenceforUseinCriminalJusticeSystems-FairTrials.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2022.
Ghasemi, M., Anvari, D., Atapour, M., Wormith, J.S., Stockdale, K.C. & Spiteri, R.J. (2021). The application of machine learning to a general risk-need assessment instrument in the prediction of criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48, 518–538.
Gipson Rankin, S.M. (2021). Technological tethered. Potential impact of untrustworthy artificial intelligence in criminal justice risk assessment instruments. Washington and Lee Law Review, 78, 647–724.
Grabenwarter, C. & Pabel, K. (2021). Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (7th ed.). München: C.H. Beck.
Greco, L. (2020). Richterliche Macht ohne richterliche Verantwortung. Warum es den Roboter-Richter nicht geben darf. Rechtswissenschaft, 11, 29–62.
Grundies, V. (2016). Gleiches Recht für alle? – Eine empirische Analyse lokaler Unterschiede in der Sanktionspraxis in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In Neubacher, F. & Bögelein, N. (eds.) Krise – Kriminalität – Kriminologie, Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg, 511–525.
Grundies, V. (2018). Regionale Unterschiede in der gerichtlichen Sanktionspraxis in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine empirische Analyse. In Hermann, D. & Pöge, A. (eds.) Kriminalsoziologie. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 295–316.
Herz, C. (2020). Striving for consistency: Why German sentencing needs reform. German Law Journal, 21, 1625–1648.
Hinkkanen, V. & Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2011). Sentencing theory, policy, and research in the nordic countries. Crime and Justice, 40, 349–404.
Jehle, J.-M., Lewis, C., Nagtegaal, M., Palmowski, N., Pyrcak-Górowska, M., van der Wolf M. & Zila, J. (2021). Dealing with dangerous offenders in Europe. A comparative study of provisions in England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Criminal Law Forum, 32, 181–245.
Kaspar, J., Höffler, K. & Harrendorf, S. (2020). Datenbanken, Online-Votings und künstliche Intelligenz—Perspektiven evidenzbasierter Strafzumessung im Zeitalter von “Legal Tech”. Neue Kriminalpolitik, 32, 35–56.
Kehl, D., Guo, P. & Kessler, S. (2017). Algorithms in the criminal justice system. Assessing the use of risk assessments in sentencing. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33746041. Accessed 22 November 2021.
Kohn, B. (2021). Künstliche Intelligenz und Strafzumessung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Länderarbeitsgruppe. (2019). Legal Tech: Herausforderungen für die Justiz. Abschlussbericht. https://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Landesregierung/II/Minister/Justizministerkonferenz/Downloads/190605_beschluesse/TOPI_11_Abschlussbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1. Accessed 8 February 2022.
Langford, M. (2020). Taming the digital leviathan: Automated decision-making and international human rights. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 114, 141–146.
Lappi‐Seppälä, T. (2007). Penal policy in Scandinavia. Crime and Justice, 36, 217–295.
Lara, F. & Deckers, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence as a Socratic assistant for moral enhancement. Neuroethics, 13, 275–287.
Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5, 1–16.
Lindner, B., Neumann, L. & Pohlmann, S. (2020). Comparative Conclusion. In Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, pp. 517–540.
Lyell, D. & Coiera, E. (2017). Automation bias and verification complexity. A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24, 423–431.
Mavronicola, N. (2015). Crime, Punishment and Article 3 ECHR: Puzzles and Prospects of Applying an Absolute Right in a Penal Context. Human Rights Law Review, 15, 721–743.
Meyer-Ladewig, J. & Nettesheim, M. (2017). Artikel 8 EMRK. Recht auf Achtung des Privat—und Familienlebens. In: Meyer-Ladewig, J., Nettesheim, M. & v. Raumer, S. (eds.) EMRK: Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention—Handkommentar (4 ed.) Nomos: Baden-Baden.
McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (2001). The Medium is the Message. An Inventory of Effects, Corte Madera: Gingki Press Inc.
Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research. Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(4), 439–466.
Nieto-Martín, A., Muñoz de Morales Romero, M. & Rodríguez Yagüe, C. (2020). Country Report Spain. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 149–183.
Nink, D. (2021). Justiz und Algorithmen. Über die Schwächen menschlicher Entscheidungsfindung und die Möglichkeiten neuer Technologien in der Rechtsprechung. Nomos: Baden-Baden.
Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Vaughan, J. W. & Wallach, H. (2018). Manipulating and measuring model interpretability. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 237, 1–52.
Quattrocolo, S. (2019). An introduction to AI and criminal justice in Europe. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 5, 1519–1554.
Rainie, L. & Anderson, J. (2017). Code-dependent: Pros and cons of the algorithm age. https://apo.org.au/node/74277. Accessed 7 November 2022.
Reiling, A.D. (2020). Courts and artificial intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11, Art. 8.
Rostalski, F. & Völkening, M. (2019). Smart Sentencing. Ein neuer Ansatz für Transparenz richterlicher Strafzumessungsentscheidungen. Kriminalpolitische Zeitschrift, 265–273.
Ruppert, F. (2021). Strafzumessung am Scheideweg? Legal Tech und Strafzumessung, Kriminalpolitische Zeitschrift, 90–98.
Rudin, C., Wang, C. & Coker, B. (2020). The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism prediction. Harvard Data Science Review 2.1. https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/7z10o269/release/4. Accessed 22 November 2021.
Russell, S.J. & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach (4 ed.). Pearson: Hoboken.
Satzger, H. (2020). Strafzumessung in den USA. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 541–563.
Satzger, H., Lindner, B. & Pohlmann, S. (2020). Research Report. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 35–45.
Shank, D.B., DeSanti, A. & Maninger, T. (2019). When are artificial intelligence versus human agents faulted for wrongdoing? Moral attributions after individual and joint decisions. Information, Communication & Society, 22, 648–663.
Simmons, R. (2018). Big Data, Machine Judges, and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System. UC Davis Law Review, 1067–1118.
Sommerer, L. (2020). Personenbezogenes Predictive Policing. Kriminalwissenschaftliche Untersuchung über die Automatisierung der Kriminalprognose. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSW Law Journal, 41, 1114–1133.
Spohn, C. (2015). Evolution of sentencing research. Criminology and Public Policy, 14, 225–232.
Staffler, L. & Jany, O. (2020). Künstliche Intelligenz und Strafrechtspflege—eine Orientierung, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 15, 164–177.
Steffensmeier, D., Painter-Davis, N. & Ulmer, J. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60, 810–833.
Steinborn, S. (2020). Länderbericht Polen. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 333–377.
Tigard, D.W. (2021). Artificial moral responsibility: How we can and cannot hold machines responsible. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30, 435–447.
Ulenaers, J. (2020). The impact of artificial intelligence on the right to a fair trial. Towards a robot judge? Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 11, article number: 20200008.
Ünver, H.A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence, Authoritarianism and the Future of Political Systems, Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26084. Accessed 22 November 2021.
Vorhaus (2002). Part One: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Common Law World Review, 31, 374–399.
Wachter, S. & Mittelstadt, B. (2019). A right to reasonable inferences: re-thinking data protection law in the age of big data and AI. Columbia Business Law Review, 494–620.
Wang, C., Han, B., Patel, B., Mohideen, F. & Rudin, C. (2020). In pursuit of interpretable, fair and accurate machine learning for criminal recidivism prediction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04176. Accessed 24 January 2022.
Wooldredge, J., Frank, J., Goulette, N. & Travis, L. (2015). Is the impact of cumulative disadvantage on sentencing greater for black defendants? Criminology and Public Policy, 14, 187–223.
Završnik, A. (2018). Algorithmic crime control. In: Završnik A (ed.) Big Data, Crime and Social Control, Routledge: New York, 131–153.
Završnik, A. (2020). Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems and human rights, ERA Forum, 20, 567–583.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2018). Discrimination, artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making. https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73. Accessed 22 November 2021.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kaspar, J., Harrendorf, S., Butz, F., Höffler, K., Sommerer, L., Christoph, S. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Sentencing from a Human Rights Perspective. In: Završnik, A., Simončič, K. (eds) Artificial Intelligence, Social Harms and Human Rights. Critical Criminological Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19149-7_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19149-7_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19148-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19149-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)