Cross-corpus research synthesis
AI in Criminal Justice
Predictive policing, risk assessment, sentencing assistance.
Synthesised deterministically from 7 articles that engage this theme. Empirical consensus: contested · contested: Does algorithmic risk-assessment reduce or reproduce racial disparities? Empirical literature (ProPublica COMPAS critique vs. industry replication) is unresolved.. Full theme article: /wiki/criminal-justice. Machine-readable: /wiki/synthesis.json.
Cross-jurisdiction stances (4 govern, 6 engage)
| Instrument | Verdict | Provision excerpt / citation |
|---|---|---|
| EU AI Act | governs | Law enforcement: AI systems intended to be used by or on behalf of law enforcement authorities to assess the risk of a natural person offending or re-offending, as polygraphs, or to profile… (paraphrase) Annex III §6 (high-risk: law enforcement) |
| Executive Order 14110 on Safe, Secure, Trustworthy AI | governs | §7.1(b) (DOJ AI use review) |
| UK Pro-Innovation Approach to AI Regulation (White Paper) | implicit | Forensic Information Databases Strategy Board |
| Council of Europe Framework Convention on AI | governs | Art. 14 (procedural safeguards) |
| UNESCO Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence | implicit | Ethical-governance section, paras 62-63 — names law enforcement + the judiciary as sensitive use cases requiring oversight; no dedicated criminal-justice regime |
| Italy Law No. 132/2025 on Artificial Intelligence (Legge 23 settembre 2025, n. 132) | governs | “Nei casi di impiego dei sistemi di intelligenza artificiale nell'attività giudiziaria è sempre riservata al magistrato ogni decisione sull'interpretazione e sull'applicazione della legge, sulla valutazione dei fatti e delle prove e sull'adozione dei provvedimenti.” Art. 15 — in judicial use of AI, decisions on legal interpretation/application, evaluation of facts and evidence, and adoption of measures are always reserved to the magistrate; AI limited to organisational/administrative support. Art. 24(2)(h) delegates a future regime for AI in policing. |
Evidence convergence
Sources the corpus cites for this theme across multiple articles — a scientometric consensus signal computed from inline prose citations (the more articles independently cite a source, the more load-bearing it is for this theme). 14 sources are cited by ≥2 articles.
- 3×arxiv:2504.18236 — cited by 3 articles
- 3×An interdisciplinary account of the terminological choices by EU policymakers ahead of the final agreement on the AI Act: AI system, general purpose AI system, foundation model, and generative AI — cited by 3 articles
- 3×Identifying Algorithmic Decision Subjects' Needs for Meaningful Contestability — cited by 3 articles
- 3×Global perspectives on regulating facial recognition technology utilization for criminal justice arrests — cited by 3 articles
- 3×Machines of justice: A systematic review of AI applications in policing and criminal justice — cited by 3 articles
- 2×Missing the Mark: Adoption of Watermarking for Generative AI Systems in Practice and Implications Under the New EU AI Act — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Predictive policing and predictive justice: Ethics, data protection, and the AI act — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Facial recognition technology in law enforcement: a scoping review of existing empirical studies — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Unregulated large language models produce medical device-like output — cited by 2 articles
- 2×A Framework for Evaluating Global AI Governance Initiatives — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Artificial intelligence and synthetic biology: biosecurity risks, dual-use concerns, and governance pathways — cited by 2 articles
- 2×The EU model of AI governance: regulating artificial intelligence through law and policy — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Defending Compute Thresholds Against Legal Loopholes — cited by 2 articles
- 2×Algorithm-facilitated discrimination: a socio-legal study of the use by employers of artificial intelligence hiring systems — cited by 2 articles