This considers the use of AI algorithms to assist in making decisions such as sentencing, parole, and law enforcement. Proponents argue that it can improve efficiency and reduce human biases. Opponents argue that it may perpetuate existing biases and lacks accountability.
@9NLKPW93 days3D
Yes if t can be proven that people with have far trials. The current system allows bias to influence opinions instead of relying on the the evidence at hand.
@9NJQ7XHLibertarian3 days3D
Privatize and deregulate the criminal justice system and allow them the autonomy to decide for themselves if they want to use AI or not
@9NJ53Q54 days4D
Only if there is proven evidence of the AI having no bias and an accurate understanding of illegal human behaviour and rights.
@9NHFJLNIndependent4 days4D
Only when the technology is reliable and guides a human-made decision, instead of being the deciding vote.
@9NFKBRV5 days5D
Maybe - if it is based on the evidence and not opinion it could work, but humans would have to oversee it.
@9NCR6VK7 days7D
AI should only be used for low-criminal cases to allow workers to put more time into more serious casrs
No. AI is still very unstable and inaccurate and should never be used to make any decisions, especially not in a court of law.
@9MZNXWB2wks2W
It could be used as a tool to aid legal teams and increase their efficiency but not be solely relied on
@9MYJ9VQ2wks2W
AI could be a useful tool to aid legal teams reach an outcome but should not be relied on and used alone and without any human expertise or input
@9MYGFMY2wks2W
maybe trial it? in some stances it could help but may not match equivalence to a bad crime sometimes.
AI should be used in the longer term (once fully trained up) to support the decision made by humans.
@emmaipod2wks2W
Yes, but only admin/paperwork duties - mental health assessments and guarding duties should still be in our control
@9MX5JLC2wks2W
No, human judgement needs to be the sole decider in the criminal justice system to account for emotion
@9MVNQV82wks2W
Yes, but have a human panel to vote on whether or not it should be accepted.
@9MVG3T72wks2W
I would need to know more information to answer this one
@9MSC5RK2wks2W
Yes, provided the system used to assist has well defined parameters to prevent bias etc
@9MSBHQM2wks2W
as it stands as a fairly new technology, not for the moment. but a provably unbiased and ethical AI would be better than the current system
@9MS4XHX2wks2W
It could be, but not in isolation, there should still be a balance with human input
@9MRYQKW2wks2W
No, but it should be used as a tool to help make the decision.
@9MRL8XK2wks2W
Not currently. We need clear understanding, testing, protocols & boundaries for usage before implementing
@9MRFDN32wks2W
Only after thorough research and extensive analysis
@9MR7G5Q2wks2W
It could support decisions but requires interpretation and consideration of the source data that the AI is using
@9MQV8M82wks2W
Yes, but for guidance only. Not making the decision
@9MQS8RV2wks2W
To assist decision making - no final decision without human assessment
@9MQKXZT2wks2W
It should be used to give guidance or analyse material, but not automatically decide.
@9MPWSXM2wks2W
Yes but only if it considers all evidence provided and is not mislead by a lawyer attempting to lessen or get their client off free of charge.
@9MPLNMH2wks2W
not yet but in the future it should be used as an initial step to categorise and then allow for human judging after
@9MPKRHM2wks2W
Yes, but it still needs layers of human verification
@9MP2SV62wks2W
It should he used to ASSIST with decisions, ensuring consistency.
@9MNLL5V2wks2W
Yes, but only in an advisory capacity. The judge has the final say.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
