Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper reviews the literature on AI's role in judicial decision-making, focusing on risk assessment in pretrial, sentencing, and parole contexts. It synthesizes findings on the performance and fairness of AI tools, biases in human judges, and the interaction between AI and human decision-makers. The review finds that the impact of AI decision aids on judicial decisions is modest or nonexistent, highlighting the need for further research on AI performance, judicial behavior in noisy environments, and individual differences in responses to AI advice.
Despite the hype, AI decision aids have had surprisingly little impact on actual judicial decisions, revealing a critical gap between algorithmic potential and real-world application.
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies into judicial decision-making - particularly in pretrial, sentencing, and parole contexts - has generated substantial concerns about transparency, reliability, and accountability. At the same time, these developments have brought the limitations of human judgment into sharper relief and underscored the importance of understanding how judges interact with AI-based decision aids. Using criminal justice risk assessment as a focal case, we conduct a synthetic review connecting three intertwined aspects of AI's role in judicial decision-making: the performance and fairness of AI tools, the strengths and biases of human judges, and the nature of AI+human interactions. Across the fields of computer science, economics, law, criminology and psychology, researchers have made significant progress in evaluating the predictive validity of automated risk assessment instruments, documenting biases in judicial decision-making, and, to a more limited extent, examining how judges use algorithmic recommendations. While the existing empirical evidence indicates that the impact of AI decision aid tools on pretrial and sentencing decisions is modest or inexistent, our review also reveals important gaps in the canvassed literatures. Further research is needed to evaluate the performance of AI risk assessment instruments, understand how judges navigate noisy decision making environments and how individual characteristics influence judges'responses to AI advice. We argue that AI vs Human comparisons have the potential to yield new insights into both algorithmic tools and human decision-makers and advocate greater interdisciplinary integration and cross-fertilization in future research.
