Should AI be used to make decisions in criminal justice systems?

Yes

On multiple occasions, when exposed to large enough data sets, large language AI models have developed data-driven prejudices against groups who have higher propensities for criminality, low time preference behaviour, subversion, communism, violence, etc.

Invariably, the superior processing ability of AI creates the patterns that many progressive and similarly morally relativistic people would call "racist" or "prejudiced" which would present a political obstacle to this becoming a reality.

It's entirely possible that our courts could produce better outcomes simply…  Read more by treating people in-line with their groups and data sets, rather than proceeding from "impartiality" but it would be a difficult sell to Canadians disconnected from their identity who believe Trudeau's reprehensible rhetoric about Canada's status as the first post-national county.

No, AI does not understand emotions and consequences. It would not properly be able to assess the weight of these decisions to the community.

Yes, but only for minor infractions that would otherwise tie up the courts time for more major cases

No it should not make decisions. However on a case by case basis streamlining research comparing cases AI should be used

If a human makes a mistake, the human has to take the responsibility. If an AI makes a mistake, who will take the responsibility?

it should not be used to make decisions about people but it should be used to help facilitate the decisions about people.

No, because the way AI works is by prediction models, justice shouldn't be applied for future actions, only past actions.

AI should be looked at as a possible voice alongside the judge and jury. Not to make descisions but as a voice in choir used to help make informed descisions.

Yes, but it should not be the main source of judicial decisions. Rather, it should be used to ensure consistent and uniform results based on case law and common law precedence.

Yes, assuming massive human oversight and the AI having to explain each part of its thought process and how it reached a conclusion.

Yes, but the accuracy of AI should be improved beforehand.

Both AI and a human should make two separate decisions then compare.

Should be used to help decide but not ultimately decide.

No, a human with feelings and emotions should be able to make decisions that drastically affect lives

No, AI is based on Human intellect and therfore is Progamed to be biased based on the human programer

Abolish ai on a global scale because it takes over others jobs

as long as the defendant and prosecution is okay with it

Yes…it would take the human error factor/emotion out of sentencing and provide more consistency. Criminal justice currently favours the criminals rights and sentencing needs to consider and benefit the victims. It needs to be more than just a “legal system”

Yes, but only if the technology is proven to have extremely high accuracy (99%+)

Yes, but it ought to be used to supplement the findings of the courts and juries.

It should be used to detect evidence that was tampered with by ai.

Not now since AI has been proven to invent case law, perhaps in the future but only as an adjunct.

No, AI could make suggestions but decisions should be made my humans

No, it will be assumed objective even though it will maintain our biases.

Yes, but only to offer solutions to decisions, not make them

Artificial Intelligence in its current state, is not true AI as it cannot make its own decisions and reasoning in an independent or unbiased manner. Current AI models heavily rely on information which is/was produced by various human scholars- of whom are experts in their qualified field(s) . Therefore, AI is not an appropriate overseer within legal/criminal fields.

AI can be used as a tool to help assist in making decisions, however, should not be used as the sole decision maker.