From Fantastic Theories to Objective Reality: Is there Future for Artificial Intelligence and Predictive Technologies in Administration of Criminal Justice?

Digitalization of various spheres of public relations, including their legal regulation, has recently become the talk of the town. More than a dozen works, many of which are of a rather fundamental nature, address the problems of digital development of law in general and criminal procedure in particular. However, it is difficult to deny that the issues of the influence of artificial intelligence on the development of justice have become the subject of widespread discussion relatively recently. As for predictive technologies, in comparison with foreign countries, there are many times fewer works of Russian legal researchers studying the issues under consideration. Basically, the legal personality of artificial intelligence is perceived as something negative, although it would be wrong to completely deny the idea of gradual penetration of this high technology into legal reality. The study attempts to participate in the discussion concerning admissibility of the use of predictive technologies and artificial intelligence in the administration of justice in criminal cases.

The paper substantiates the thesis that rapid digitalization in the field of criminal justice should not go against implementation of the citizens’ right to access justice, but should serve as an important means of achieving transparency of the criminal process.

Based on the basic postulates of the construction of the Russian criminal process, the author critically comprehends the place of artificial intelligence and predictive technologies from the standpoint of auxiliary elements or a fullfledged replacement of a human judge, discusses the search for an optimal balance of their application in order to improve the quality of justice in criminal cases. Despite certain conservatism of the criminal process and the seeming surrealism of thinking about full-fledged coexistence of criminal justice with predictive technologies and artificial intelligence, the author considers this direction to be very promising, requiring further study and reflection for the benefit of human development, society and the state.

1. Asimov A. Esse № 6. Zakony robotekhniki [Essay No. 6. Three Laws of Robotics]. Mechty robotov [Robot Dreams]. Moscow: Eksmo Publ.; 2004. (In Russ.).

2. Albov AP. Tsifrovye tekhnologii v sovremennoy pravoprimenitelnoy praktike [Digital technologies in modern law enforcement practice]. Uchenye trudy Rossiyskoy akademii advokatury i notariata. 2022;2(65):9-15. (In Russ.).

3. Afanasyev AYu. Iskusstvennyy intellekt v ugolovnom protsesse [Artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings]. Juridical Techniques. 2021;15:571-574. (In Russ.).

4. Gasanova ShSh, Suleymanov DI. Iskusstvennyy intellekt i sudoproizvodstvo: problemy i tendentsii [Artificial intelligence and judicial proceedings: problems and trends]. Judicial Science and Education. 2022;66:35-50. (In Russ.).

5. Godfrua L. Algoritmicheskie modeli analiza sudebnykh resheniy (MAAD) [Algorithmic models for analyzing judicial decisions (MAAD)]. Public Administration. 2021;4(132):20-28. (In Russ.).

6. Golovko LV. Tsifrovizatsiya v ugolovnom protsesse: lokalnaya optimizatsiya ili globalnaya revolyutsiya [The Digitalization in criminal procedure: local optimization or global revolution?]. Vestnik of Academy of economic security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2019;1:15-25. (In Russ.).

7. Malina MA. Tsifrovizatsiya rossiyskogo ugolovnogo protsessa: iskusstvennyy intellekt dlya sledovatelya ili vmesto sledovatelya [Digitalization of the russian criminal procedure: artificial intelligence for an investigator or instead of an investigator]. Russian Investigator. 2021;2:29-32. (In Russ.).

8. Markovicheva EV. Tsifrovaya transformatsiya rossiyskogo ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Digital transformation of russian criminal proceedings]. Pravosudie [Justice]. 2020;2(3):86-99. (In Russ.).

9. Momotov VV. Iskusstvennyy intellekt v sudoproizvodstve: sostoyanie, perspektivy ispolzovaniya [Artificial intelligence in litigation: state and prospects for use]. Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL). 2021;5:188-191. (In Russ.).

10. Prikhodko SO, Kalashnikova EB. Tsifrovizatsiya sudebnoy sistemy [Digitalization of the judicial system]. Interdisciplinary Research: The Experience of the Past, Opportunities of the Present, Srategies of the Future. 2020;1:99-103. (In Russ.).

11. Dondero B. Justice prédictive: la fin de l’aléa judiciaire? Recueil Dalloz; 2017.

12. Épineuse N, Garapon A. Les défis d’une justice à l’ère numérique de «stade 3». Enjeux numériques. 2018;3:16-19.

13. Hubert M. Les algorithmes prédictifs au service du juge: vers une déshumanisation de la justice pénale? Regards critiques de juges d’instruction. Faculté de droit et de criminologie, Université catholique de Louvain; 2020.

14. Larret-Chahine L. L’éthique de la justice prédictive. Enjeux numériques. 2018;3:86-91.