Criminal Justice Systems

Literature Review

Criminal justice systems use AI, machine learning, big data, and prediction software, posing ethical issues regarding responsibility, transparency, and equitability. Algorithmic criminal justice decision-making is a topic of discussion for many scholars, decision-makers, and activists. This review focuses on the core literature on criminal justice accountability. It also addresses the issues of the pros and cons of technology, human rights and technology, international criminal law, and social work decision support systems.

According to Chiao (2019), accountability, transparency, and fairness are moral questions for algorithmic criminal justice. The article challenges the reliability of technology because of the prejudices in the data from which the algorithms are derived. It deals with algorithmic judgments and technology failure responsibility (Chiao, 2019). Despite these concerns’ soaring nature, Chiao believes they can be accounted for. However, the report considers whether algorithmic decision-making can outperform current criminal justice approaches and encourages comparative studies.

Land and Aronson (2020) study the challenges of using artificial intelligence in criminal justice and other fields. The article emphasizes that the accountability shift and the obscure nature of AI reasoning endanger human rights. As technology ostensibly intended for human rights fact-finding and democratization has been turned into weaponry, public and private actions must be reconceptualized (Land & Aronson, 2020). The analysis reveals that human rights standards should guide technological advancement to facilitate the accountability of AI damage.

In her research on the Syrian civil conflict governance issue, Burgis-Kasthala (2019) maintains that international criminal law can be renewed. This article describes the “entrepreneurial justice” that the Commission for International Justice and Accountability (CIJA) and other private groups fill the public with (Burgis-Kasthala, 2019). Even though accountability issues exist, the paper contends that CIJA is essential to the development viewpoint and elaborates on how private actions can promote accountability, especially in disputes.

In criminal justice, social work, and other public sectors, Gillingham (2019) describes algorithmic DSS. The paper argues that DSS may provide poor advice and support social biases. Gillingham requests that social workers challenge the biased DSS suggestions and present guidelines to prevent and deal with social injustice (Gillingham, 2019). The essay adds to scholarship by highlighting the accountability of social workers in changing technology systems.

Bernaz (2021) assesses four BHR treaty alternatives and global business responsibility. The framework reveals seven critical corporate accountability elements. The evaluation contributes to negotiating a BHR treaty by spelling out alternatives and tradeoffs and promoting a progressive paradigm that couples aspirational international law development with practical state support (Bernaz, 2021). This view widens the scope of accountability beyond corporate human rights obligations and that of criminal justice.

Using the Syrian Civil War as a case study, Ghuna Bdiwi talks about criminal law as a liability tool during wars in her 2023 paper. The article is dedicated to discussing the expressive philosophy of punishment and why criminal accountability is required, focusing on its ability to humiliate the criminals in honor of the victims (Ghuna Bdiwi, 2023). The essay recommends criminal culpability instead of human rights discourse. It looks at accountability for the offenders and offers shared humanity.

In conclusion, this literature review presents key contributions to the criminal justice accountability conversation. The reviewed articles deal with algorithmic decision-making, technology and human rights, international criminal law, social work decision support systems, and corporate accountability. The study reveals that addressing accountability in criminal justice requires a comprehensive strategy that uses modern institutional models and technology to navigate the dynamic justice systems.

References

Bernaz, N. (2021). Conceptualizing corporate accountability in international law: Models for a business and human rights treaty. Human rights review, 22(1), 45–64.

Burgis-Kasthala, M. (2019). Entrepreneurial justice: Syria, the Commission for International Justice and Accountability and the renewal of international criminal justice. European Journal of International Law, 30(4), 1165-1185.

Chiao, V. (2019). Fairness, accountability, and transparency: notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice. International Journal of Law in Context, 15(2), 126–139.

Ghuna Bdiwi. (2023). Should We Call for Criminal Accountability During Ongoing Conflicts? Journal of International Criminal Justice.

Gillingham, P. (2019). Decision support systems, social justice and algorithmic accountability in social work: A new challenge. Practice, 31(4), 277–290.

Land, M. K., & Aronson, J. D. (2020). Human rights and technology: new challenges for justice and accountability. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16, 223-240.