Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Decision-Making: Risks, Due Process, and Governance Frameworks
Main Article Content
Keywords
artificial intelligence, judicial decision-making, algorithmic bias, due process, legal technology
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being integrated into judicial decisions worldwide, influencing outcomes in bail, sentencing, and parole determinations. This review examines the application of AI in judicial practices and the potential risks associated with its use in the courts of the United States, China, and Europe. An incident involving AI-generated cases at the Beijing Tongzhou District People's Court in 2025 highlights the threat that algorithmic errors and AI hallucinations could pose to judicial proceedings. The primary risks identified include algorithmic bias, lack of transparency (the black box problem), erosion of due process, and the potential weakening of judicial discretion. Existing legal frameworks, from experiential oversight in the United States to protections under Europe's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), remain insufficient in addressing these challenges. Synthesizing literature on AI applications in judicial practice, algorithmic fairness, and due process, this article proposes a multi-level governance framework involving individual judges, court institutions, professional associations, and legislators. This framework aims to provide ethical and procedural guidance for the use of AI in the judiciary, ensuring that technological advancements enhance efficiency without undermining fairness, accountability, and the rule of law. Future research should focus on the practical effects of AI in judges' decision-making, governance strategies across different jurisdictions, and the development of normative guidelines to safeguard justice in an increasingly automated judicial environment.
References
- [1] Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016, May 23). Machine bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
- [2] Harvard Undergraduate Law Review. (2026, January 5). Robot judges? https://hulr.org/law-in-the-news/robot-judges
- [3] Khademi, A., & Honavar, V. (2025). Algorithmic bias in recidivism prediction: A causal perspective. OpenReview. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2509.12345
- [4] Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76-99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
- [5] Zheng, J. (2025, October 29). AI-generated fake cases in court: A wake-up call. China Court Network. http://www.chinacourt.org/article/detail/2025/10/id/8765432.shtml
- [6] State v. Loomis, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016). https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2016/2015ap157-cr.html
- [7] Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674736061
- [8] UK Ministry of Justice. (2025). AI action plan for justice: A roadmap for safe and effective AI adoption. https://ai.justice.gov.uk/action-plan
- [9] Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2026, February 3). VLRC recommends guidelines for the safe use of AI in Victoria's courts and tribunals. https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/news/vlrc-recommends-guidelines-for-the-safe-use-of-ai-in-victorias-courts-and-tribunals/
- [10] Chouldechova, A. (2017). Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data, 5(2), 153-163. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.0047
- [11] Kleinberg, J., Mullainathan, S., & Raghavan, M. (2017). Inherent trade-offs in the fair determination of risk scores. Proceedings of Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1609.05807
- [12] Mashaw, J. L. (1985). Due process in the administrative state. Yale University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1xp3v2s
- [13] Mashaw, J. L. (1974). The management side of due process: Some theoretical and litigation notes on the assurance of accuracy, fairness, and timeliness in the adjudication of social welfare claims. Cornell Law Review, 59(5), 772-825. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol59/iss5/2
- [14] Selbst, A. D., & Barocas, S. (2018). The intuitive appeal of explainable machines. Fordham Law Review, 87(3), 1085-1139. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol87/iss3/10
- [15] Cogilanese, C., & Lehr, D. (2017). Regulating by robot: Administrative decision making in the machine-learning era. Georgetown Law Journal, 105(5), 1147-1223. https://www.georgetownlawjournal.org/articles/regulating-robot-administrative-decision-making-machine-learning-era
- [16] O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishers. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt1wf4d8b
Article Sidebar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.