The Role of AI in Sentencing Decisions and the Principle of Justice: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis
https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2025.129.5.137-147
Abstract
The article explores the challenges of applying artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to sentencing practices in foreign jurisdictions, through the lens of the criminal law principle of justice. The relevance of the topic stems from the ongoing digitalization of justice and the increasing use of algorithmic systems in criminal proceedings. The methodology includes comparative legal analysis and a critical evaluation of foreign practices (United States, China, Japan) and theoretical approaches. Special attention is given to such phenomena as algorithmic discrimination, opacity of AI models, the datafication of judicial practice, and restrictions on judicial discretion. Based on international examples, the study analyzes the risks of reducing sentencing individualization, replacing justice with statistical norms, and eroding public trust in the judiciary. The author concludes that a critical reassessment of AI’s role in criminal justice is needed, along with the development of comprehensive legal and ethical safeguards to uphold fundamental principles of criminal law. The study engages with a vital debate on the permissible boundaries of digital transformation in criminal law.
About the Author
V. N. Voronin
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vyacheslav N. Voronin, Associate Professor of the Department of Criminal Law, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor,
9, ul. Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya, Moscow, 125993
References
1. Воронин В. Н. Ретрибутивизм, справедливость наказания и учет общественного мнения в современном уголовном праве // Социально-экономическое развитие и качество правовой среды: сборник докладов VIII Московского юридического форума (XIX Международная научно-практическая конференция), г. Москва, 8—10 апреля 2021 г.: в 5 ч. — М.: Университет имени О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА), 2021. — Ч. 4. — С. 16—19.
2. Agarwal Srishti. Use of Artificial Intelligennce in Criminal Cases (October 21, 2023) // International Review of Law and Technology. — Vol. 2. — Is. 2. — Forthcoming. — SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4609135. — URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4609135.
3. Bangura G. The European Union Artificial Intelligence Act: Mitigating Discrimination in Artificial Intelligence Systems: Master Thesis. — University of Applied Arts Vienna, 2024.
4. Bell F., Legg M. Judicial Impartiality: AI in Courts // Cambridge Handbook of AI in Courts. — Cambridge University Press, 2025.
5. Bell F. and Legg M. Judicial Impartiality: AI in Courts (February 11, 2025) // UNSW Law Research. — No. 25-4. — SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5161571. — URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5161571.
6. Brożek B., Furman M., Jakubiec M., Kucharzyk B. The Black Box Problem Revisited: Real and Imaginary Challenges for Automated Legal Decision Making // Artificial Intelligence and Law. — 2024. — Vol. 32. — P. 427—440. — DOI: 10.1007/s10506-023-09356-9.
7. Dou L. & Dou X. (2025). Towards Just AI: Challenges and Solution Framework for Algorithmic Discrimination in Judicial System // International Journal of Digital Law and Governance. — URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0020.
8. Engel Ch., Linhardt L., Schubert M. Code is Law: How COMPAS Affects the Way the Judiciary Handles the Risk of Recidivism // Artificial Intelligence and Law. — 2024. — DOI: 10.1007/s10506-024-09389-8.
9. Gil Rothschild-Elyassi. The Datafication of Law: How Technology Encodes Carceral Power and Affects Judicial Practice in the United States (2022).
10. Hendrickx V. The Judicial Duty to State Reasons in the Age of Automation? The Impact of Generative AI Systems on the Legitimacy of Judicial Decision-Making // European Law Review. — 2024. — № 1.
11. Hirsch Andrew Von. Past or future crimes: Deservedness and dangerousness in the sentencing of criminals. — New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1985. — 220 p.
12. COMPAS and Proxies: Algorithmic Discrimination in Practice / J. Zhang [et al.] // Unpublished manuscript, 2021.
13. Lai J., Lin H., Zhang L., Wu C. A Comparative Study of Risk Assessment Tools in Criminal Justice: COMPAS, LSI-R, and Others // Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice. — 2023. — Vol. 23. — No. 1. — P. 45—67.
14. Papagianneas S. Automating Intervention in Chinese Justice: Smart Courts and Supervision Reform // Asian Journal of Law and Society. — 2023. — Vol. 10. — No. 1. — P. 123—145. — DOI: 10.1017/als.2023.5.
15. Papagianneas S. Smart Courts and Governance in the PRC. Preprint // SSRN, 2023. — URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3777378.
16. Rudin C. Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead // Nature Machine Intelligence. — 2019. — Vol. 1. — No. 5. — P. 206—215.
17. Ryberg J. Criminal Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence: What is the Input Problem? // Criminal Law, Philosophy (2024). — URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-024-09739-2.
18. Ryberg J. Justice by Algorithm? The Limits of AI in Criminal Sentencing // Criminal Law and Philosophy. — 2024. — Vol. 18. — P. 1—18.
19. Ryberg J. Sentencing, Artificial Intelligence, and Condemnation: A Reply to Taylor // Philosophy & Technology. — 2024. — Vol. 37. — № 2.
20. Simmons R. Big Data and Procedural Justice: Legitimizing Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System // Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law. — 2018. — Vol. 15. — No. 2. — P. 573—615.
21. Vargas-Murillo A. R. et al. Transforming Justice: Implications of Artificial Intelligence in Legal Systems // Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. — 2024. — Vol. 13. — No. 2. — P. 433—450. — DOI: 10.36941/ajis-2024-0059.
22. Wadsworth Ch., Vera F., Piech Ch. Achieving Fairness through Adversarial Learning: an Application to Recidivism Prediction // Proceedings of the FAT/ML Workshop. — Stockholm, 2018.
23. Wang N., Tian M. Y. Intelligent Justice: AI Implementations in China’s Legal System // Chapter in Edited Volume, 2022.
24. Wang N., Tian M. Y. Intelligent Justice: human-centered considerations in China’s legal AI transformation // AI Ethics 3, 349—354 (2023). — URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00202-3.
25. Watamura Eiichiro, Liu Yichen, Ioku Tomohiro. Judges versus Artificial Intelligence in Juror Decision-Making in Criminal Trials: Evidence from Two Pre-Registered Experiments // PLOS ONE. — 2025. — Vol. 20. — № 1.
26. Zhang Y., Li J. COMPAS Risk Score and Prediction of Recidivism // International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. — 2022. — Vol. 19. — No. 10594.
27. Zhang J. & Han Yu. (2022). Algorithms Have Built Racial Bias in Legal SystemAccept or Not? — 10.2991/assehr.k.220105.224.
Review
For citations:
Voronin V.N. The Role of AI in Sentencing Decisions and the Principle of Justice: A Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)). 2025;(5):137-147. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2025.129.5.137-147
Views:
10
Email this article 
