Open Access

ALGORITHMIC INEQUITY IN JUSTICE: UNPACKING THE SOCIETAL IMPACT OF AI IN JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING

4 Institute for Ethics in Artificial Intelligence, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany

Abstract

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in judicial decision-making processes has introduced both opportunities and significant concerns, particularly regarding fairness and transparency. This paper critically examines the phenomenon of algorithmic inequity within legal systems, focusing on how biased data, opaque algorithms, and lack of accountability can perpetuate or even amplify existing social injustices. Through interdisciplinary analysis, the study explores the structural factors contributing to algorithmic bias, its implications for marginalized communities, and the ethical dilemmas facing policymakers and technologists. Case studies of real-world AI applications in sentencing, parole, and risk assessment highlight the societal consequences of uncritical AI adoption in the justice system. The paper concludes with recommendations for fostering algorithmic accountability, inclusive data governance, and human oversight to ensure equitable and trustworthy judicial outcomes.

Keywords

References

📄 Cofone, I. (2020). AI and Judicial Decision-Making. SSRN. researchgate.net+12papers.ssrn.com+12pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+12
📄 Medvedeva, M., Wieling, M., & Vols, M. (2020). The danger of reverse-engineering of automated judicial decision making systems. arXiv. arxiv.org
📄 Kleinberg, J., Ludwig, J., Mullainathan, S., & Sunstein, C. R. (2019). Discrimination in the age of algorithms. arXiv. arxiv.org
📄 Alon Barkat, S., & Busuioc, M. (2021). Human–AI interactions in public sector decision-making: “Automation bias” and “Selective adherence” to algorithmic advice. arXiv. arxiv.org
📄 Ferrer, X., van Nuenen, T., Such, J. M., Coté, M., & Criado, N. (2020). Bias and discrimination in AI: A cross-disciplinary perspective. arXiv. arxiv.org
📄 “Bias in AI-supported decision making: old problems, new challenges.” (2025). Int’l Journal of Criminal Administration. iacajournal.org+1clp.law.harvard.edu+1
📄 Ho, A., et al. (2025). Public perceptions of judges’ use of AI tools in courtroom decision-making. Behavioral Sciences, 15(4), 476. mdpi.com+1pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov+1
📄 “Bias in adjudication: Investigating the impact of artificial intelligence.” (2025). Journal of Global Justice Studies. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
📄 “Artificial intelligence in judicial adjudication: Semantic biasness in legal judgements.” (2024). ScienceDirect. papers.ssrn.com+15sciencedirect.com+15tatup.de+15
📄 “Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making: Evaluating the role of AI in debiasing.” (2023). ResearchGate. researchgate.net
📄 “Artificial intelligence at the bench: Legal and ethical challenges of generative AI.” (2025). Data & Policy. cambridge.org
📄 “The risk of discrimination in AI-powered judicial decision.” (2025). TheLegalWire.ai. thelegalwire.ai
📄 “The digital ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’: AI biases in predictive judicial support.” (2024). CWSL Law Review. scholarlycommons.law.cwsl.edu
📄 “Content analysis of judges’ sentiments toward AI risk-assessment tools.” (2023). CCJLS. ccjls.scholasticahq.com
📄 Ferrara, E. (2024). Fairness and bias in artificial intelligence: A brief survey of sources, impacts, and mitigation strategies. Sci, 6(1), 3. mdpi.com
📄 Esthappan, S. (2024). Judges using algorithms to justify decisions: Study on pretrial risk assessment. Social Problems. theverge.com
📄 Proudman, C. & herEthical AI (2024). Victim-blaming language in family court judges. The Guardian. theguardian.com
📄 Reform, J. D. (2023). AI tells lawyers how judges are likely to rule: Pre/Dicta analysis. Axios. axios.com
📄 Strang, D., & Buting, J. (2025). Risks of jurors using ChatGPT in trials. The Sun. thesun.co.uk
📄 Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., & Sunstein, C. R. (2021). Noise: A flaw in human judgment. Little, Brown Spark. en.wikipedia.org
📄 Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. ProPublica.
📄 Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances. en.wikipedia.org
📄 Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Make algorithms accountable. The New York Times. en.wikipedia.org
📄 Kroll, H., Barocas, S., Felten, E., & Reidenberg, J. (2016). Accountable algorithms. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. en.wikipedia.org
📄 Mosier, K., Roudsari, A., & Wyatt, J. C. (2012). Automation bias and errors: Are teams better than individuals? Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association.