Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Law Department, Faculty of Humanities, and Damghan University, Damghan, Iran
2
Master's student in Criminology and Criminal Justice, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities, Damghan State University, Damghan, Iran
Abstract
The application of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) within the criminal justice system represents one of the most critical yet controversial scientific and legal challenges of the contemporary era. The primary concern stems from the inherent nature of these tools; AI-based systems lack human judgment, moral intuition, and the capacity to comprehend value-based concepts. Consequently, absolute reliance on such systems to determine the fate of defendants is not only inappropriate but also potentially dangerous, particularly regarding the complete replacement of human judges. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, this study explores this issue by focusing on two fundamental theoretical approaches in the philosophy of punishment: retributivism and utilitarianism. Simultaneously, it examines the challenges related to free will, moral responsibility, and the preservation of human values in the criminal justice process. Findings indicate that the legitimacy and efficacy of AI acting as a judge depend largely on the prevailing theory governing the penal system. Within the framework of retributivism, critics’ concerns appear justified, as this approach is grounded in judging the moral responsibility of the accused for past actions—a process requiring value assessments and moral reasoning beyond the capabilities of AI. In this context, replacing human judges with algorithms could undermine the moral foundations of criminal justice. Conversely, within a utilitarian framework—which focuses not on the past, but on future-oriented goals such as deterrence, rehabilitation, and social protection—the deployment of AI tools is more justifiable. Although these tools lack moral agency, their ability to analyze vast datasets, predict high-risk behaviors, and ensure uniform, impersonal decision-making procedures can effectively support utilitarian objectives, provided sufficient guarantees are established to protect fundamental rights. Ultimately, the study argues that the acceptance or rejection of AI in adjudication should not be absolute; rather, its legitimacy depends on the theoretical foundations and philosophy of punishment within a given legal system. Therefore, rethinking concepts such as justice, human dignity, and free will in the face of emerging technologies is an inevitable necessity for the future of criminal justice.
Keywords
Subjects
