ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AS A TOOL FOR APPLYING EVALUATIVE CONCEPTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: LEGAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The rapid integration of artificial intelligence into legal practice raises fundamental questions about its compatibility with criminal justice, a field that has traditionally been based on human judgment and discretion. This relevance becomes particularly acute with regard to evaluative concepts, which are indispensable for context-sensitive decision-making but at the same time create risks of inconsistency and unpredictability. Against this backdrop, this article aims to assess whether artificial intelligence can function as an auxiliary tool for the application of evaluative concepts in criminal proceedings and whether such use is legally and economically justified. The object of the study is the application of evaluative concepts in criminal justice, and the subject is the economic and legal consequences of applying artificial intelligence to evaluative concepts. The study is based on doctrinal legal analysis, comparative legal reasoning, and the methodology of law and economics as a theoretical and methodological basis. By synthesising legal theory and economic analysis, the article considers artificial intelligence as a normative problem and as a tool for optimising economic efficiency. The article demonstrates that artificial intelligence can enhance analytical capabilities in criminal proceedings by systematising large volumes of case law, identifying patterns in the application of evaluative concepts, and highlighting deviations from established trends in decision-making. As a result, artificial intelligence can contribute to greater consistency and predictability in judicial practice. At the same time, the study reveals structural limitations of algorithmic approaches, in particular reduced sensitivity to unique contextual factors, difficulties in providing normative justification, and the risk of reinforcing existing interpretative patterns. From an economic perspective, the analysis shows that artificial intelligence has the potential to reduce transaction costs, optimise the allocation of judicial resources and speed up procedural decision-making, provided that its use remains auxiliary rather than substitutive. The practical value of the study lies in substantiating a balanced model for integrating artificial intelligence into criminal justice, in which algorithmic tools serve as analytical aids, while final decisions remain under human control, ensuring both efficiency and compliance with fundamental legal guarantees.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
artificial intelligence in criminal justice, evaluative concepts, judicial discretion, decision support systems, algorithmic transparency, law and economics, criminal procedure efficiency
Abramowicz, M. (2024). The Cost of Justice at the Dawn of AI. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4543803
Bartneck, C., Lütge, C., Wagner, A., & Welsh, S. (2021). What Is AI? In C. Bartneck, C. Lütge, A. Wagner, & S. Welsh, An Introduction to Ethics in Robotics and AI (pp. 5–16). Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51110-4_2
Dajović, G. (2023). Hartʼs judicial discretion revisited. Revus, 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.9735
Dworkin, R. (2001). Taking rights seriously. Harvard Univ. Press.
European Parliament. (2021, July). Report on artificial intelligence in criminal law and its use by the police and judicial authorities in criminal matters. 13 july 2021 (2020/2016(INI)), committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs, rapporteur: Petar vitanov.
Franguloiu, S. (2024). Principles for the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Ai) in the Judiciary as derived from the European Ethics Charter. Justice Efficiency and Limitations. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Braşov. Series VII: Social Sciences - Law, 39–46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31926/but.ssl.2023.16.65.3.5
Frank, J. (2017). Law & the modern mind. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203787533
Gadamer, H.-G., & Gadamer, H.-G. (2003). Truth and method (2., rev. ed). Continuum.
Gignac, G. E., & Szodorai, E. T. (2024). Defining intelligence: Bridging the gap between human and artificial perspectives. Intelligence, 104, 101832. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2024.101832
Gil De Zúñiga, H., Goyanes, M., & Durotoye, T. (2024). A Scholarly Definition of Artificial Intelligence (AI): Advancing AI as a Conceptual Framework in Communication Research. Political Communication, 41(2), 317–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2023.2290497
Heri, C. (2021). Responsive Human Rights: Vulnerability, Ill-treatment and the ECtHR (1st edn). Hart Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509941261
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2018). Human Decisions and Machine Predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
Levmore, S., & Fagan, F. (2019). The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Rules, Standards, and Judicial Discretion. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3362563
Mizaras, V. (2025, January 31). Artificial intelligence and the right to a fair trial: Speech at the judicial seminar, 31 January 2025.
Oberto, G. (2024, October 20). Artificial intelligence and judicial activities: The position of the european commission for the efficiency of justice (CEPEJ). International Association of Judges (IAJ) / Council of Europe.
Reyes Molina, S. A. (2020). Judicial Discretion as a Result of Systemic Indeterminacy. Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 33(2), 369–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cjlj.2020.7
Pohoretskyi, M. A. (2021). The concept of criminal process and its scientific and practical significance. Herald of Criminal Justice, 1–2, 28–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2021.1-2/28-51
Zhou, S. (2024). Analyzing the justification for using generative AI technology to generate judgments based on the virtue jurisprudence theory. Journal of Decision Systems, 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/12460125.2024.2428999
Abramowicz, M. (2024). The Cost of Justice at the Dawn of AI. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4543803
Berk, R. (2011). Balancing the costs of forecasting errors in parole decisions. Albany Law Review, 74(3), 1071–1085.
Cofone, I., & Khern-am-nuai, W. (2025a). The overstated cost of AI fairness in criminal justice. Indiana Law Journal, 100(4). Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol100/iss4/4
Cofone, I., & Khern-am-nuai, W. (2025b). The overstated cost of AI fairness in criminal justice. Indiana Law Journal, 100(4), Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol100/iss4/4
Fagan, F., & Levmore, S. (2019). The impact of artificial intelligence on rules, standards, and judicial discretion. Southern California Law Review, 93(1), 1–35. Available at: https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/93_1_Levmore.pdf
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2018). Human Decisions and Machine Predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Lee, H., Nagin, D. S., & Sherman, L. (2025). Measuring the Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Policing: The Case of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR). Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 9(1), 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-025-00099-y
Manning, M., Wong, G. T. W., Graham, T., Ranbaduge, T., Christen, P., Taylor, K., Wortley, R., Makkai, T., & Skorich, P. (2018). Towards a ‘smart’ cost–benefit tool: Using machine learning to predict the costs of criminal justice policy interventions. Crime Science, 7(1), 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0086-4
Manning, M., Wong, G. T. W., Mahony, C., & Vidanage, A. (2023). A method and app for measuring the heterogeneous costs and benefits of justice processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1094303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1094303
Singh, S., & Devi, L. (2026). Reliability and Admissibility of AI-Generated Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials (Version 1). arXiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2601.06048
Travaini, G. V., Pacchioni, F., Bellumore, S., Bosia, M., & De Micco, F. (2022). Machine Learning and Criminal Justice: A Systematic Review of Advanced Methodology for Recidivism Risk Prediction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710594
Abramowicz, M. (2024). The Cost of Justice at the Dawn of AI. SSRN Electronic Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4543803
Berk, R. (2011). Balancing the costs of forecasting errors in parole decisions. Albany Law Review, 74(3), 1071–1085.
Cofone, I., & Khern-am-nuai, W. (2025a). The overstated cost of AI fairness in criminal justice. Indiana Law Journal, 100(4). Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol100/iss4/4
Cofone, I., & Khern-am-nuai, W. (2025b). The overstated cost of AI fairness in criminal justice. Indiana Law Journal, 100(4), Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol100/iss4/4
Fagan, F., & Levmore, S. (2019). The impact of artificial intelligence on rules, standards, and judicial discretion. Southern California Law Review, 93(1), 1–35. Available at: https://southerncalifornialawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/93_1_Levmore.pdf
Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2018). Human Decisions and Machine Predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Lee, H., Nagin, D. S., & Sherman, L. (2025). Measuring the Cost-Effectiveness of New Technologies in Policing: The Case of Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPR). Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing, 9(1), 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41887-025-00099-y
Manning, M., Wong, G. T. W., Graham, T., Ranbaduge, T., Christen, P., Taylor, K., Wortley, R., Makkai, T., & Skorich, P. (2018). Towards a ‘smart’ cost–benefit tool: Using machine learning to predict the costs of criminal justice policy interventions. Crime Science, 7(1), 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-018-0086-4
Manning, M., Wong, G. T. W., Mahony, C., & Vidanage, A. (2023). A method and app for measuring the heterogeneous costs and benefits of justice processes. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1094303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1094303
Singh, S., & Devi, L. (2026). Reliability and Admissibility of AI-Generated Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials (Version 1). arXiv. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2601.06048
Travaini, G. V., Pacchioni, F., Bellumore, S., Bosia, M., & De Micco, F. (2022). Machine Learning and Criminal Justice: A Systematic Review of Advanced Methodology for Recidivism Risk Prediction. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(17), 10594. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710594
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.