Research and development in criminal law and criminology

Research and development in criminal law and criminology

Artificial Intelligence and Rethinking Criminal Justice: A Retributive and Utilitarian Analysis

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
Fateme Ashabi 1
Ali Hamidavi 2
Reza Mosazadeh mikhosh 2
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
10.22034/jclc.2025.2065927.1221
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
Free Will
Human Values
Artificial Intelligence
Criminal Justice
Retributivism
Utilitarianism
Subjects
1-   Bagaric, Mirko, Svilar, Jennifer, Bull, Melissa, Hunter, Dan, & Stobbs, Nigel. (2022). The solution to the pervasive bias and discrimination in the criminal justice system: transparent and fair artificial intelligence. American Criminal Law Review, 59(1), 95-148.
2-   Belyakova, Anna Vladimirovna. (2024). Artificial intelligence in the judiciary: issues and outlooks. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 5(3), 68-87.
3-   Bhattacharya, Istapada, & Karmakar, Mrinmay. (2023). An Analysis of the Legal and Ethical Consequences of the Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Investigations. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 6, 2085-2091.
4-   Caianiello, Michele. (2021). Dangerous liaisons. potentialities and risks deriving from the interaction between artificial intelligence and preventive justice. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 29(1)
5-   Chronowski, Nora, Kalman, Kinga, & Szentgali-Toth, Boldizsar. (2021). Artificial intelligence, justice, and certain aspects of right to fair trial. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae: Legal Studies, 10(2), 169-189.
6-   De Diego Carreras, Alberto. (2020). The moral (un)intelligence problem of artificial intelligence in criminal justice: comparative analysis under different theories of punishment. UCLA Journal of Law and Technology, 25(1), i-38.
7-   Đurđević, Z., & Ivičević Karas, E. (2023). Uporaba umjetne inteligencije u hrvatskom kaznenom postupku: postojeće stanje i perspektiv. Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu, 30(2), 227-242.
8-   Dolidze, Tatia. (2024). The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Reality and Perspective. Law and World, 31, 80-97., 1-24.
9-   Garrett, B. L., & Rudin, Cynthia. (2024). The right to glass box: rethinking the use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice. Cornell Law Review,109(3) , 561-628.
10-    Hunter, Dan, Bagaric, Mirko, & Stobbs, Nigel. (2020). framework for the efficient and ethical use of artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Florida State University Law Review, 47(4), 749-800.
11-    Josey, Alanah. (2019). Jeremy bentham and canadian evidence law: the utilitarian perspective on mistrial applications. Manitoba Law Journal, 42(4), 291-314. P 295
12-    Kaplina, O., Tumanyants, A., Krytska, I., & Verkhoglyad-Gerasymenko, O. (2023). Application of artificial intelligence systems in criminal procedure: Key areas, basic legal principles and problems of correlation with fundamental human rights. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2023(3), 147–166.
13-    Kuklin, Bailey. (2018). Public requitals: corrective, retributive, and distributive justice. Cleveland State Law Review, 66(2), 245-340. P 271
14-    Lowe, B. N. (2017). Punishment without purpose: the retributive and utilitarian failures of the child pornography non-production sentencing guidelines. Cleveland State Law Review, 65(2), 231-258.p 240
15-    Murray, B. M. (2021). Retributive expungement. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 169(3), 665-716.p679.
16-    Nita, Gabriel. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence tools in the criminal justice system. Revista Romana de Drept al Afacerilor, 2023(2), 69-84.
17-    O'Hanlon, Stephen. (2009). Towards more reasonable approach to free will in criminal law. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 7(2), 395-428. P425.
18-    Strauss, A. R. (2002). Losing sight of the utilitarian forest for the retributivist trees: an analysis of the role of public opinion in utilitarian model of punishment. Cardozo Law Review, 23(4), 1549-1596.
19-    Spiridonov, M. S. (2023). Artificial intelligence technologies in criminal procedural proving. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(2), 481-497
20-    Tang, Yanan. (2024). The predicaments and countermeasures of the application of artificial intelligence in criminal justice. Foundation for Law and International Affairs Review, 5(1), 119-140.
21-    Abouzari, M. (2025). Dealing with Crime in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Prediction as Prevention. (e720961). Research and development in criminal law and criminology, 1(2), e720961.(In persian)
22-    Bagaric, Mirko, Svilar, Jennifer, Bull, Melissa, Hunter, Dan, & Stobbs, Nigel. (2022). The solution to the pervasive bias and discrimination in the criminal justice system: transparent and fair artificial intelligence. American Criminal Law Review, 59(1), 95-148.
23-    Belyakova, Anna Vladimirovna. (2024). Artificial intelligence in the judiciary: issues and outlooks. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 5(3), 68-87.
24-    Bhattacharya, Istapada, & Karmakar, Mrinmay. (2023). An Analysis of the Legal and Ethical Consequences of the Usage of Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Investigations. International Journal of Law Management & Humanities, 6, 2085-2091.
25-    Caianiello, Michele. (2021). Dangerous liaisons. potentialities and risks deriving from the interaction between artificial intelligence and preventive justice. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 29(1), 1-24.
26-    Chronowski, Nora, Kalman, Kinga, & Szentgali-Toth, Boldizsar. (2021). Artificial intelligence, justice, and certain aspects of right to fair trial. Acta Universitatis Sapientiae: Legal Studies, 10(2), 169-189.
27-    De Diego Carreras, Alberto. (2020). The moral (un)intelligence problem of artificial intelligence in criminal justice: comparative analysis under different theories of punishment. UCLA Journal of Law and Technology, 25(1), i-38.
28-    Đurđević, Z., & Ivičević Karas, E. (2023). Uporaba umjetne inteligencije u hrvatskom kaznenom postupku: postojeće stanje i perspektiv. Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu, 30(2), 227-242.
29-    Dolidze, Tatia. (2024). The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Justice Reality and Perspective. Law and World, 31, 80-97.
30-    Elahimanesh, M. R. and Moradi, M. (2025). THE RIGHT NOT TO BE PUNISHED: A New Approach to the Application of Criminal Sanctions. Research and development in criminal law and criminology, 2(3), 58-104.(In persian)
31-    Garrett, B. L., & Rudin, Cynthia. (2024). The right to glass box: rethinking the use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice. Cornell Law Review,109(3) , 561-628.
32-    Hunter, Dan, Bagaric, Mirko, & Stobbs, Nigel. (2020). framework for the efficient and ethical use of artificial intelligence in the criminal justice system. Florida State University Law Review, 47(4), 749-800.
33-    JAVAN JAFARI BOJNORDI, ABDOLREZA, & FARHADI ALASHTI, ZAHRA. (2020). A Survey of Utilitarian Philosophers’ Reading on Capital Punishment Deterrence. MAJLIS & RAHBORD, 26(100 ), 215-241. (In persian)
34-    Josey, Alanah. (2019). Jeremy bentham and canadian evidence law: the utilitarian perspective on mistrial applications. Manitoba Law Journal, 42(4), 291-314. P 295
35-    Kaplina, O., Tumanyants, A., Krytska, I., & Verkhoglyad-Gerasymenko, O. (2023). Application of artificial intelligence systems in criminal procedure: Key areas, basic legal principles and problems of correlation with fundamental human rights. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe, 2023(3), 147–166.
36-    Kuklin, Bailey. (2018). Public requitals: corrective, retributive, and distributive justice. Cleveland State Law Review, 66(2), 245-340. P 271
37-    Lowe, B. N. (2017). Punishment without purpose: the retributive and utilitarian failures of the child pornography non-production sentencing guidelines. Cleveland State Law Review, 65(2), 231-258.p 240
38-    Murray, B. M. (2021). Retributive expungement. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 169(3), 665-716.p679.
39-    Mousavi Mojab, S. D. (2024). The Will and Its’ Impact on Criminal Liability; with an Approach to the Legal System of Islamic Countries. Criminal Law Doctrines of Islamic Countries, 1(1), 64-82.(In persian)
40-    Nita, Gabriel. (2023). The use of artificial intelligence tools in the criminal justice system. Revista Romana de Drept al Afacerilor, 2023(2), 69-84.
41-    O'Hanlon, Stephen. (2009). Towards more reasonable approach to free will in criminal law. Cardozo Public Law, Policy, and Ethics Journal, 7(2), 395-428. P425.
42-    Rostami, H. (2024). Evaluation of Lenient Institutions in Iran’s Criminal Policy (By Emphasis on Extreme Expansion and Inefficient). Criminal Law Doctrines, 20(25), 153-178.(In persian)
43-    Shirzad pargoo, I. and Aghababaei, H. (2024). The Legislative and Judicial Criminal Policy of Iran Regarding Clemency Mechanisms in Non-Violent Crimes against State Security. Criminal Law Doctrines, 21(27), 7-34.(In persian)
44-    Strauss, A. R. (2002). Losing sight of the utilitarian forest for the retributivist trees: an analysis of the role of public opinion in utilitarian model of punishment. Cardozo Law Review, 23(4), 1549-1596.
45-    Spiridonov, M. S. (2023). Artificial intelligence technologies in criminal procedural proving. Journal of Digital Technologies and Law, 1(2), 481-497
46-   Tang, Yanan. (2024). The predicaments and countermeasures of the application of artificial intelligence in criminal justice. Foundation for Law and International Affairs Review, 5(1), 119-140.
47- Abouzari,M . (2025). Dealing with Crime in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Prediction as Prevention. Research and development in criminal law and criminology, 1(2), 34-68. doi: 10.22034/jclc.2025.720961 (in Persian)
48- Elahimanesh,M R and Moradi,M . (2025). THE RIGHT NOT TO BE PUNISHED: A New Approach to the Application of Criminal Sanctions. Research and development in criminal law and criminology, 2(3), 58-104. doi: 10.22034/jclc.2025.2049454.1138 (in Persian)
49- Shirzad Pargoo, Iman, & Aghababaei, Hossein. (2025). “Iran’s Legislative and Judicial Criminal Policy Regarding Leniency Institutions in Non-Violent Crimes Against State Security.” Teachings of Criminal Law, 21(27), 7–34. (in Persian)
50- Rostami, Hadi. (2024). “Leniency Institutions in Iran’s Criminal Policy with Emphasis on Excessive Expansion and Inefficiency.” Teachings of Criminal Law, 20(25), 153–178. (in Persian)
51- Javan-Ja‘fari Bojnordi, Abdolreza, & Farhadi Alashti, Zahra. “A Reflection on Utilitarian Philosophers’ Interpretation of the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment.” Majles and Strategy Quarterly, 26(100), 215–241. (in Persian)
52- Mousavi Mojab, Seyed Dorid. (2024). “Will and Its Effect on Criminal Responsibility: With an Approach to the Legal Systems of Islamic Countries.” Teachings of Criminal Law in Islamic Countries, 1(1), 64–82. (in Persian)