The Dark Side of AI in Law: Can We Trust Algorithms with Justice?

No ratings yet. I’ve been thinking about the growing role of AI in legal systems, and it’s fascinating—yet a bit unsettling. On the surface, AI tools like COMPAS offer an efficient, data-driven approach to sentencing and risk assessment, helping courts manage overwhelming caseloads. However, AI often inherits biases from historical data, and judges, too, can become biased by over-relying on these supposedly “objective” systems.

Imagine an AI suggesting a higher risk score for someone based on biased past trends. The judge, assuming the AI is neutral, might defer to its assessment, letting hidden biases seep into decisions. This isn’t just about the technology; it’s about how human judgment is influenced by it. Judges, lawyers, and entire legal teams can unconsciously put too much faith in these systems. Instead of reducing bias, AI can amplify systemic inequalities.

A stark example of AI’s flawed application is the Dutch childcare benefit scandal, where an AI system falsely flagged thousands of families—many from immigrant backgrounds—as fraudsters. This led to wrongful accusations, financial devastation, and even family separations. Here, the reliance on biased datasets not only worsened existing inequalities but also resulted in grave real-world consequences.

Despite these challenges, AI offers enormous potential for improving the legal profession. As discussed in several research articles, AI is already streamlining contract drafting and legal research. But over-reliance on AI can lead to errors, like fabricated case law. Moreover, access to advanced AI technology could deepen inequality between well-resourced firms and others, raising concerns about fair access to legal services.

The future isn’t without hope. Developers are focusing on making AI more transparent and helping judges recognize when to override AI outputs. By using diverse datasets and maintaining AI as a supporting tool rather than the ultimate decision-maker, we can move toward a balanced system. The challenge lies in leveraging AI’s efficiency while ensuring human oversight remains central.

But where do we draw the line between trusting technology and maintaining human integrity? Can we truly rely on AI in systems already vulnerable to bias? Or are we allowing it to perpetuate the very problems we hope it will solve? As AI evolves, so too must our approach to safeguarding the ethics and values at the heart of justice.


References:

Lelieur, J. (n.d.). Revista Internacional de Direito Penal Rivista internazionale di diritto penale Internationale Revue für Strafrecht ‫الجنائي‬ ‫للقانون‬ ‫الدولية‬ ‫المجلة‬. RIDP, 94, 2023. Retrieved September 20, 2024, from https://pure.eur.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/125457157/E-version_RIDP_2023.2_AI_and_administration_of_criminal_justice.pdf
‌
Neal, J. (2024, February 14). Harvard Law expert explains how AI may transform the legal profession in 2024. Harvard Law School. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/harvard-law-expert-explains-how-ai-may-transform-the-legal-profession-in-2024/
‌
Marwala, T. (2024, April 9). AI And The Law – Navigating The Future Together. United Nations University. https://unu.edu/article/ai-and-law-navigating-future-together
‌