Should AI be used to make decisions in criminal justice systems?

No, and AI should never be used to make decisions that will drastically affect lives

Yes

Yes, assuming checks and balances are in place

ASBOLUTELY NOT, and AI is not a person NOR a PEER which would be making a mockery of our legal system which is already plagued by several other issues.

Yes, it should be used to assist in making decisions. AI can analyze a record to determine what the expected punishments are from an unbiased view but it is up to judges and jury to make a final decision based on extenuating circumstances of the individual.

No, not yet. More studies need to be conducted first

AI needs more research, but could be used as a factual guide to assist humans in making a non biased judgement.

No, not directly. We can use it to assist in some information, but the decision should not be made BY AI, it should still be made by a person.

No, I don't trust the accuracy of AI yet as it provides fake cases to create an opinion for a singular side.

no way, we’re talking about computers they have no feelings about what prison life does to a person especially solitary confinement. It should be outlawed

no judges should not have to rely on AI to make decisions that will drastically effect lives. They have to have a clear and thorough understanding of the law

No, I do not trust the accuracy fully of AI yet, and it should never be used in the first place in order to make decisions that will drastically affect lives.

Not at all, AI is unreliable and still in trial. Human bias is natural but that is why jury and checks and balances exist.

Yes. Artificial Intelligence is, quite literally, incapable of being biased. Implementation of the right program and use of AI in the justice system IN ADDITION to human judgement could be incredibly beneficial.

AI is taking subjective information throughout history and compiling it for a judgement. While human sources are inaccurate, until AI can truly take an unbiased stance, we shouldn't use AI.

No, language model-based AI is trained from racially biased sources that convict black people and immigrants at higher rates than white people which makes the technology inaccurate and dangerous.

Maybe a hybrid where human biases are eliminated when using AI for certain cases but when the cases are more complex then no or just a advice from AI

AI should be used as A means for people in the justice system to calculate the best possible course of action and then make a decision. But it should not be used to replace human decision-making.

It depends:
-Currently, I don't trust the Accuracy of AI to make decisions in Criminal Justice Systems.
-But if AI Improves to be basically flawless as well as with heavily trained human supervisors, then I think they're ready to be rolled into the Justice system.

Yes, but it should be used transparently as an aid in decision-making, not unchecked as the sole responsible party.

One day maybe but AI has shown to be just as biased as humans and have frequent hallucinations which could impact effective and fair decision making.

No, not until an AI has become human in a way indistinguishable from humans. If anything a non-AI algorithm would be more useful given the law should apply equally.

Only if the Intelligence is smart enough to sum up an unbiased scenario that leads to a justified outcome.

Yes, AI should be used to mark checklists to verify that officers have satisfied evidence requirements and that the evidence actually supports the criminal charges made

Yes, but it should be used as a tool for recommendations and at the end of the day, it should be agreed by the justice system.

No I still believe that AI is in it's infancy and can't be trusted to make decisions that will drastically affect lives

No, The accuracy of AI is insufficient for making life altering decision. AI can be used as a tool to assist, but the final decision needs to be made and reviewed by a human.

No, as ai lacks the humanity required to make proportional sentencing decisions based on the crimes commite

I believe that there are beneficial uses of ai in the political world, and I think a great way is using it for investigation and finding information. But I don't believe they should have a final say.

No, I think it should not be used for court because it doesn't have human morals and cant understand how someone might feel.

Yes, because it can implement a fresh perspective not categorized by a human, no matter how trained. No, because AI can be faulty and possibly dangerous, especially in criminal/justice uses.

No, AI should be used to aid the collection and analysis of evidence, but should not be used to convict

Yes, this could be helpful to reduce the case loads of judges, but only for very minor and clear-cut decisions

ai does not consider the full complexity of the human brain and it does not have emotions either so therefore they cannot make comments or pass judgement on the criminal justice system

Never, and the very idea should be considered preposterous. AI is not AI, it's fancy, environment-destroying Markov Chains. It is not cognizant, and has no more predictive power than a Magic 8-ball.

No, assuming that AI would mostly judge based off facts and not human morals but if it was dealing with checks and balances like an answer above.

That depends on the circumstances. I personally think it depends on how advanced our technology and AI is in the future. I believe that if that if AI were to help out with criminal justice systems, the AI should be very advanced, not a prototype.

It would all depend on how the AI is implemented into the system, how it's used and to what extent. There are a lot of variables to consider when deciding whether to instill any kind of programming or mechanism that could and would ultimately, affect lives.

No, it shouldn't be allowed to make the decision but it can be used as one tool to offer an opinion to a human judge.

No, for one I don't trust its accuracy, and two even when it has better accuracy its judgment should be seen as another opinion and the final decision should be made by a person.

no, the line of our safety should not concern AI. However, I do believe in the use of technology to help situations in need.

yes and no, humans tend to be bias depending on age, ethnicity, gender, wealth and popularity. but AI just machines created by bias humans.

AI alone cannot decide the outcome of a court case or be used in the criminal justice system, but it could be used as a tool to help decide. AI alone has too many faults and errors. Often, AI needs human correction. AI could be used as a reference to help others decide court rulings, but it should not be the final ruling.

Yes, however, it should be up to the person receiving the sentence. No differently than choosing a judge or jury-based trial.

Yes, but not for guilty/innocent, only as a possible sentencing tool to equalize sentences and reduce gender/race bias.

I do not believe it would be rational to let AI make decisions like this yet, however, AI will eventually be advanced enough to make these decisions. Once this happens, it will be more beneficial due to using logic rather than emotion when making decisions about criminal justice.

Yes, but only to assist in decision-making, such as tracking claims made in court or keeping a record of statements.

No! This will result in a high unemployment rate! Also, I do not believe AI is NEARLY as competent of doing that as humans are.

Yes, as long as the A.I is being used fairly and unbiased. Human error is real, but A.I also has no feeling or emotion and that is a very important thing in the world, so using A.I to help make a decision is a good idea, as a long as the final say goes through human evaluation.

Should the french president revolution in based off living their lives very important is decision is in hands or process issued by new Zealand labour party leader choices are making or record any message ain't are corrections officers

not now but possibly after AI has been developed significantly more and there should still be human oversight and input

No, there are certain cases that decision making should be approached through emotion and AI is not fit for that.

Ai still has a lot of ways to go but assuming the AI can make fair and accurate decisions about certain matters and that humans have to have an input on the matter after words.

No, the only time AI should be used in the criminal justice system is if it is being used to provide background information or to provide facts pertaining to certain aspects of the case.

#3 Engaged Criminal Issues

Absolutely not

This doesn't feel like it would be that controversial. Sentences and decisions like these must be made by a human, with the correct qualifications. Ai can be used to collect evidence if the case needs or could utilize it sure. But NEVER as the final descision or sentencing.

No, AI has no place in the system. AI should be reserved for monotonous daily tasks such as laundry or dishes, not government standpoints.

Yes, but A.I should serve secondary analytical and judgmental roles as the factors that lead to crimes are interrelated and multi-dimensional.

No!!! Having worked in computers for close to 30 years I can say that AI will make informed decisions based on the input from the users. This being the case the complexity of the legal system would make an AI judge completely logical but not able to weigh the human nature aspect of crimes. AI as a legal consultant to the Judge, Jury, Prosecutor or defendant would ensure that all laws are taken into account before a decision is made. The decision should, however, be made by a human jury with a human judge.

Logic will only take you so far

Maybe they could be used to review evidence but definitely not making huge decisions such as incarceration.

AI cannot be meaningfully used on normative tasks, like moral decision-making. It can be used to inform decisions, which should be explored.

Yes, but only in minor cases now until it gets more advanced and gains more reputation for proper decisions before involving in major cases.

Only if bias can be proven to have been removed, and there are still checks and balances and the opportunity to appeal to human members of the justice system.

No, i don't trust the accuracy of AI yet, but i would change my stance with a reform of the subjectivity of current legal processes and if there is more consistency in outcome and sentencing for certain crimes.

It mainly depends on what the crime is, if it were something like a simple robbery, it could help make decisions, if the crime was something like murder, we should let a human being come to the decision and have the person locked up, and if the crime is something like terrorism, AI shouldnt even be brought up, death sentence!

Not as an alternative to humans making decisions, but AI might be a help in determining things and can possibly help get rid of some biases.

I believe they can be a consultant of sorts, being able to reference every single case in existence within seconds, but the ultimate decision left up to the judge and jury.

Yes, but on several conditions: 1. not for guilty/innocent verdicts, only as a possible tool to help calculate fair, impartial sentencing by comparing the case in question to nearly identical cases. Also, it must first be programmed to eliminate bias, which is simply not the reality at this current time, so this should not be introduced yet. It can also be used as a tool for the jury to organize, analyze and fact-check their thoughts as well as the arguments made in court by the defense, DA and judge. It could also help provide a statistically-backed overview of possible outcomes that could come from the decisions of verdict, sentencing, processing, etc in the short- and long-term.

This can be 50/50 Because A.I can help with some situations but wouldn't go by the way real humans would go about the situation.

No. A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.

They should be able to to a certain level of crime. If the crime is to harsh or anything like that it should be handled by humans.

Yes, as long as the only information the AI is fed is from past criminal convictions. Sexual Orientation , Gender, Race, and Ethnicity should not be fed.

No, and AI should never be used to make ETHICAL OR HUMANE decisions that will drastically affect lives. I do not like the current biases in place killing black men or gazans but AI is not the solution decolonization is. This question is absolutely terrifying but not on the fault of asking it as i appreciate hearing this is being pledged for in office by anyone?!

Yes to aid in the system, but decisions should be thoroughly reviewed with checks and balances in place

I think it should only be one tool in making a decision and not THE deciding factor. We are dealing with human lives and that should not be completely left up to algorithms

No, but AI should be used to weigh out all sides of cases to help real people make their own decisions

No, but it should be used as a tool to give options and outcomes of decisions to help the criminal justice system make that decision

Yes, AI probably would show proof about whether or not if a person is guilty when the case goes to court.

No, utilizing artificial intelligence to make decisions is the issue, however AI and predicting technology could be beneficial assisting The court, and the jury in recognizing the facts of the case and helping them to develop a comprehensive and all inclusive and judgment. I shall be utilized to formulate all the thoughts, and the conclusions that it develops should be viewed by both sides of the prosecution and defense prior to being admissible in court.

I suggest a hybrid solution where the AI provides solutions & or advice for cases where biases could let criminals run free despite the crimes they committed but AI is never the decider of the final verdict

AI has a stronger moral code than most people I've met, and that's without morals being programmed. That's just predictive text.

I think once AGI and an adept understanding between AGI and humanity is formed, it would work beautifully. I don't trust humans to develop a moral code in a machine if they can't even figure one out themselves. So, no. Not yet.

no because Ai will choose purely what is legal and illegal, they lack human emotions and the understanding in situations where someone either deserves justice from being raped or a family member killed or situations where it was in self defense.

Sure but with many limitations and no over reliance.

As of right now, no. As they improve, it may be able to be used but it would need massive checks for biases first.

I think it can help give objective thought processes, but I do not think it should be the end all be all.

It could be usful, but it could just as well be hacked and wrongfully free a bunch of criminals

Somewhat, I think they can help go deeper into a case but shouldn't be used to make a full decision.

yes and no I think that it wouldn't make best depositions but I don't thank that the laws not always right and in some cases it should be up to how moral the decision is

Yes, a machine has no moral say on matters, it can execute a sentence or assist in law enforcement without second guessing itself

No, they lack the judgement that we humans possess.

To some extent, yes, however human intervention is imperative.

An AI model could be implemented to compare and contrast court findings and rulings and eliminate bias.

No - the technology is not ready for something like this. However, I'll re-evaluated this for 2028.

There’s some instances where AI is helpful, and others where AI won’t be helpful

No, but it is instead used to sum up the information in a case to provide a clearer picture of all evidence provided, not to make decisions.

No, AI should not people do things because of emotions and other people can feel emotions but robots can't.

Yes, as long as there is a governance committee driving the personas, parameters and workflows in use, and 4 sigma plus quality evaluations.

Yes, as long as we can be sure it’s programmed to eliminate bias AND is used as a tool for people to make decisions and it isn’t making the decision itself.