rusjelRussian Journal of Economics and LawRussian Journal of Economics and Law2782-2923"TCE "Taglimat"" Ltd.10.21202/2782-2923.2024.1.246-263rusjel-2523Research ArticleПЕРЕВОДНЫЕ СТАТЬИTRANSLATED ARTICLESКонтент-анализ мнений судей об инструментах оценки рисков с использованием искусственного интеллектаContent Analysis of Judges’ Sentiments Toward Artificial Intelligence Risk Assessment ToolsФайнА.FineA.

Анна Файн, соискатель степени PhD по междисциплинарной социальной психологии

1300 1664, ул. С. Виргинии, Рино, NV 89557

Anna Fine, Interdisciplinary Social Psychology Ph.D. Program, Mailstop

1300 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89557

afine@nevada.unr.eduЛиС.LeS.

Стефани Ли, магистрант

1300 1664, ул. С. Виргинии, Рино, NV 89557

Stephanie Le, a first-year Master of Sociology student

1300 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89557

МиллерМ. К.MillerM. K.

Моника К. Миллер, доктор права, PhD, профессор

1300 1664, ул. С. Виргинии, Рино, NV 89557

Monica K. Miller, J.D., Ph.D., is a Foundation Professor

1300 1664 N. Virginia St., Reno, NV, 89557

Университет Невады в РиноСоединённые Штаты АмерикиUniversity of NevadaUnited States202419032024181246263Copyright © Файн А., Ли С., Миллер М., 20242024Файн А., Ли С., Миллер М.Fine A., Le S., Miller M.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.rusjel.ru/jour/article/view/2523

Цель: анализ правовых позиций судейских работников об инструментах оценки рисков с использованием искусственного интеллекта.Методы: диалектический подход к познанию социальных явлений, позволяющий проанализировать их в историческом развитии и функционировании в контексте совокупности объективных и субъективных факторов, который определил выбор следующих методов исследования: формально-логический и социологический.Результаты: искусственный интеллект (ИИ) делает прогнозы (например, при вынесении решения об освобождении под поручительство) с использованием компьютерного программного кода и потенциально может положительно влиять на систему правосудия (например, экономить время и снижать уровень предвзятости). Данная работа содержит анализ вторичных данных и оценивает ответы 381 судьи на вопрос «Считаете ли Вы, что искусственный интеллект (использующий компьютерные программы и алгоритмы) способен устранить предвзятость при вынесении решений об освобождении под поручительство и приговоров?».Научная новизна: на основе опубликованной литературы авторы выделили такие категории, как оценка и неприятие судьями компьютерных алгоритмов, локус контроля, нормы процессуального права, легитимность. Результаты показывают, что судьи испытывают неприятие компьютерных алгоритмов, опасаются усиления предвзятости при использовании ИИ и возможности потери работы из-за развития технологий. Судьи считают, что ИИ может помочь им при вынесении решений об освобождении под поручительство и приговоров, однако он должен пройти эмпирические проверки и следовать разработанным правилам. На основе изученных мнений судей об ИИ авторы обсуждают вопросы интеграции ИИ в правовую систему и направления будущих исследований.Практическая значимость: основные положения и выводы статьи могут быть использованы в научной, педагогической и правоприменительной деятельности при рассмотрении вопросов, связанных с правовыми рисками использования искусственного интеллекта.

Objective: to analyze the positions of judges on risk assessment tools using artificial intelligence.Methods: dialectical approach to cognition of social phenomena, allowing to analyze them in historical development and functioning in the context of the totality of objective and subjective factors, which predetermined the following research methods: formal-logical and sociological.Results: Artificial intelligence (AI) uses computer programming to make predictions (e.g., bail decisions) and has the potential to benefit the justice system (e.g., save time and reduce bias). This secondary data analysis assessed 381 judges’ responses to the question, “Do you feel that artificial intelligence (using computer programs and algorithms) holds promise to remove bias from bail and sentencing decisions?”Scientific novelty: The authors created apriori themes based on the literature, which included judges’ algorithm aversion and appreciation, locus of control, procedural justice, and legitimacy. Results suggest that judges experience algorithm aversion, have significant concerns about bias being exacerbated by AI, and worry about being replaced by computers. Judges believe that AI has the potential to inform their decisions about bail and sentencing; however, it must be empirically tested and follow guidelines. Using the data gathered about judges’ sentiments toward AI, the authors discuss the integration of AI into the legal system and future research.Practical significance: the main provisions and conclusions of the article can be used in scientific, pedagogical and law enforcement activities when considering the issues related to the legal risks of using artificial intelligence.

искусственный интеллектсудьиинструменты принятия решенийобщественное мнениенеприятие компьютерных алгоритмовпринятие компьютерных алгоритмовнормы процессуального правалегитимностьartificial intelligencejudgesdecision-making toolspublic opinionalgorithm aversionalgorithm appreciationprocedural justicelegitimacyReferencesAndrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.Andrews, P. (2022, October 13). Designing for legitimacy. Apolitical. https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/designing-for-legitimacyAndrews, P. (2022, October 13). Designing for legitimacy. Apolitical. https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/designing-for-legitimacyAngwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. In K. Martin (Ed.), Ethics of data and analytics (pp. 254–264). Auerbach Publications.Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. In K. Martin (Ed.), Ethics of data and analytics (pp. 254–264). Auerbach Publications.Audette, A. P., & Weaver, C. L. (2015). Faith in the court: Religious out-groups and the perceived legitimacy of judicial decisions. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12167Audette, A. P., & Weaver, C. L. (2015). Faith in the court: Religious out-groups and the perceived legitimacy of judicial decisions. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 999–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12167Barabas, C., Virza, M., Dinakar, K., Ito, J., & Zittrain, J. (2018, January). Interventions over predictions: Reframing the ethical debate for actuarial risk assessment. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 62–76. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/barabas18a.htmlBarabas, C., Virza, M., Dinakar, K., Ito, J., & Zittrain, J. (2018, January). Interventions over predictions: Reframing the ethical debate for actuarial risk assessment. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 81, 62–76. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/barabas18a.htmlBelur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372Belur, J., Tompson, L., Thornton, A., & Simon, M. (2021). Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: Exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociological Methods & Research, 50(2), 837–865. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124118799372Buhlmann, M., & Kunz, R. (2011). Confidence in the judiciary: Comparing the independence and legitimacy of judicial systems. West European Politics, 34(2), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.546576Buhlmann, M., & Kunz, R. (2011). Confidence in the judiciary: Comparing the independence and legitimacy of judicial systems. West European Politics, 34(2), 317–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2011.546576Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103Burstein, P. (2006). Why estimates of the impact of public opinion on public policy are too high: Empirical and theoretical implications. Social Forces, 84(4), 2273–2289. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0083Burstein, P. (2006). Why estimates of the impact of public opinion on public policy are too high: Empirical and theoretical implications. Social Forces, 84(4), 2273–2289. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2006.0083Bushway, S. H., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 55(4), 733–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/3185415Bushway, S. H., & Piehl, A. M. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 55(4), 733–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/3185415Buskey, B., & Woods, A. (2018). Making sense of pretrial risk assessments. National Association of Defense Lawyers. https://www.nacdl.org/Article/June2018-MakingSenseofPretrialRiskAssesBuskey, B., & Woods, A. (2018). Making sense of pretrial risk assessments. National Association of Defense Lawyers. https://www.nacdl.org/Article/June2018-MakingSenseofPretrialRiskAssesCassata, C. (2019, December 20). Facebook using artificial intelligence to help suicidal people. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-help-suicidal-peopleCassata, C. (2019, December 20). Facebook using artificial intelligence to help suicidal people. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-help-suicidal-peopleClawson, R. A., Kegler, E. R., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2001). The legitimacy-conferring authority of the US Supreme Court: An experimental design. American Politics Research, 29(6), 566–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029006002Clawson, R. A., Kegler, E. R., & Waltenburg, E. N. (2001). The legitimacy-conferring authority of the US Supreme Court: An experimental design. American Politics Research, 29(6), 566–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X01029006002Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.7.571Dawes, R. M. (1979). The robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making. American Psychologist, 34, 571–582. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.34.7.571de Fine Licht, K., & de Fine Licht, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making: Why explanations are key when trying to produce perceived legitimacy. AI & Society, 35(4), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00960-wde Fine Licht, K., & de Fine Licht, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence, transparency, and public decision-making: Why explanations are key when trying to produce perceived legitimacy. AI & Society, 35(4), 917–926. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00960-wDemuth, S., & Steffensmeier, D. (2004a). Ethnicity effects on sentence outcomes in large urban courts: Comparisons among White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 994–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.0038-4941.2004.00255.xDemuth, S., & Steffensmeier, D. (2004a). Ethnicity effects on sentence outcomes in large urban courts: Comparisons among White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85(4), 994–1011. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.0038-4941.2004.00255.xDemuth, S., & Steffensmeier, D. (2004b). The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process. Social Problems, 51(2), 222 242. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2004.51.2.222Demuth, S., & Steffensmeier, D. (2004b). The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process. Social Problems, 51(2), 222 242. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2004.51.2.222Diab, D. L., Pui, S. Y., Yankelevich, M., & Highhouse, S. (2011). Lay perceptions of selection decision aids in US and non-US samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1468-2389.2011.00548.xDiab, D. L., Pui, S. Y., Yankelevich, M., & Highhouse, S. (2011). Lay perceptions of selection decision aids in US and non-US samples. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 19(2), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1468-2389.2011.00548.xDietvorst, B. J., & Bharti, S. (2020). People reject algorithms in uncertain decision domains because they have diminishing sensitivity to forecasting error. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1302–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620948841Dietvorst, B. J., & Bharti, S. (2020). People reject algorithms in uncertain decision domains because they have diminishing sensitivity to forecasting error. Psychological Science, 31(10), 1302–1314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620948841Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Luther, K. (2012). What people want from their professionals: Attitudes toward decision-making strategies. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.741Eastwood, J., Snook, B., & Luther, K. (2012). What people want from their professionals: Attitudes toward decision-making strategies. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 25(5), 458–468. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.741Farnsworth, S. J. (2003). Congress and citizen discontent: Public evaluations of the membership and one’s own representative. American Politics Research, 31(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02238580Farnsworth, S. J. (2003). Congress and citizen discontent: Public evaluations of the membership and one’s own representative. American Politics Research, 31(1), 66–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X02238580Fine, A., Le, S., & Millera, M. K. (2023). Content Analysis of Judges’ Sentiments Toward Artificial Intelligence Risk Assessment Tools, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 24(2), 31–46.Fine, A., Le, S., & Millera, M. K. (2023). Content Analysis of Judges’ Sentiments Toward Artificial Intelligence Risk Assessment Tools, Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 24(2), 31–46.Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI (Research Publication No. 2020-1). Berkman Klein Center. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3518482Fjeld, J., Achten, N., Hilligoss, H., Nagy, A., & Srikumar, M. (2020). Principled artificial intelligence: Mapping consensus in ethical and rights-based approaches to principles for AI (Research Publication No. 2020-1). Berkman Klein Center. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3518482Garrett, B., & Monahan, J. (2019). Assessing risk: The use of risk assessment in sentencing. Judicature, 103(2), 6–16. https://iudicature.duke.edu/articles/assessing-risk-the-use-of-risk-assessment-in-sentencing/Garrett, B., & Monahan, J. (2019). Assessing risk: The use of risk assessment in sentencing. Judicature, 103(2), 6–16. https://iudicature.duke.edu/articles/assessing-risk-the-use-of-risk-assessment-in-sentencing/Gibson, J. L. (2006). Judicial institutions. In R. A. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 514-534). Oxford University Press.Gibson, J. L. (2006). Judicial institutions. In R. A. Rhodes, S. A. Binder, & B. A. Rockman (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political institutions (pp. 514-534). Oxford University Press.Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19Grove, W. M., Zald, D. H., Lebow, B. S., Snitz, B. E., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19Gurr, T. (1974). Persistence and change in political systems, 1800-1971. American Political Science Review, 68(4), 1482–1504. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959937Gurr, T. (1974). Persistence and change in political systems, 1800-1971. American Political Science Review, 68(4), 1482–1504. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959937Harris, H. M., Gross, J., & Grumbs, A. (2019). Pretrial risk assessment in California. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/pretrial-risk-assessment-in-california.pdfHarris, H. M., Gross, J., & Grumbs, A. (2019). Pretrial risk assessment in California. Public Policy Institute of California. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/pretrial-risk-assessment-in-california.pdfHelm, J. M., Swiergosz, A. M., Haeberle, H. S., Karnuta, J. M., Schaffer, J. L., Krebs, V. E., Spitzer, A. I., & Ramkumar, P. N. (2020). Machine learning and artificial intelligence: Definitions, applications, and future directions. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 13, 69–76.Helm, J. M., Swiergosz, A. M., Haeberle, H. S., Karnuta, J. M., Schaffer, J. L., Krebs, V. E., Spitzer, A. I., & Ramkumar, P. N. (2020). Machine learning and artificial intelligence: Definitions, applications, and future directions. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 13, 69–76.Henman, P. (2020). Improving public services using artificial intelligence: Possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(4), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2020.1816188Henman, P. (2020). Improving public services using artificial intelligence: Possibilities, pitfalls, governance. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 42(4), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/23276665.2020.1816188Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570Hoff, K. A., & Bashir, M. (2015). Trust in automation: Integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Human Factors, 57(3), 407–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720814547570IBM Cloud Education. (2020, June 3). What is artificial intelligence? https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/what-is-artificial-intelligenceIBM Cloud Education. (2020, June 3). What is artificial intelligence? https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/what-is-artificial-intelligenceJones, L. (2020, October 6). ProPublica’s misleading machine bias. Medium. https://medium.com/@llewhinkes/propublicas-misleading-machine-bias-19c971549a18Jones, L. (2020, October 6). ProPublica’s misleading machine bias. Medium. https://medium.com/@llewhinkes/propublicas-misleading-machine-bias-19c971549a18Knowles, B., Richards, J. T., & Kroeger, F. (2022). The many facets of trust in AI: Formalizing the relation between trust and fairness, accountability, and transparency. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00681Knowles, B., Richards, J. T., & Kroeger, F. (2022). The many facets of trust in AI: Formalizing the relation between trust and fairness, accountability, and transparency. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.00681Kramer, M. F., Schaich Borg, J., Conitzer, V., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2018, December). When do people want AI to make decisions? Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference On AI, Ethics, and Society, 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278752Kramer, M. F., Schaich Borg, J., Conitzer, V., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2018, December). When do people want AI to make decisions? Proceedings of the 2018 AAAI/ACM Conference On AI, Ethics, and Society, 204–209. https://doi.org/10.1145/3278721.3278752Lee, M. K., Jain, A., Cha, H. J., Ojha, S., & Kusbit, D. (2019). Procedural justice in algorithmic fairness: Leveraging transparency and outcome control for fair algorithmic mediation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359284Lee, M. K., Jain, A., Cha, H. J., Ojha, S., & Kusbit, D. (2019). Procedural justice in algorithmic fairness: Leveraging transparency and outcome control for fair algorithmic mediation. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359284Lee, N. T., & Lai, S. (2022, May 17). The U.S. can improve its AI governance strategy by addressing online biases. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2022/05/17/the-u-s-can-improve-its-ai-governance-strategy-by-addressing-online-biases/Lee, N. T., & Lai, S. (2022, May 17). The U.S. can improve its AI governance strategy by addressing online biases. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2022/05/17/the-u-s-can-improve-its-ai-governance-strategy-by-addressing-online-biases/Lemons, M. A., & Jones, C. A. (2001). Procedural justice in promotion decisions: Using perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(4), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940110391517Lemons, M. A., & Jones, C. A. (2001). Procedural justice in promotion decisions: Using perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(4), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940110391517Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 27–55). Springer.Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 27–55). Springer.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.Lindgren, S., & Holmstrom, J. (2020). Social science perspective on artificial intelligence: Building blocks for a research agenda. Journal of Digital Social Research, 2(3), 1 15. https://doi.org/10.33621/idsr.v2i3.65Lindgren, S., & Holmstrom, J. (2020). Social science perspective on artificial intelligence: Building blocks for a research agenda. Journal of Digital Social Research, 2(3), 1 15. https://doi.org/10.33621/idsr.v2i3.65Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.obhdp.2018.12.005Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.obhdp.2018.12.005McKay, C. (2020). Predicting risk in criminal procedure: Actuarial tools, algorithms, AI and judicial decision-making. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2019.1658694McKay, C. (2020). Predicting risk in criminal procedure: Actuarial tools, algorithms, AI and judicial decision-making. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2019.1658694Miller, M. K., & Chamberlain, J. (2015). “There ought to be a law!”: Understanding community sentiment. In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, J. Chamberlain (Eds.), Handbook of community sentiment (pp. 3–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1899-1Miller, M. K., & Chamberlain, J. (2015). “There ought to be a law!”: Understanding community sentiment. In M. K. Miller, J. A. Blumenthal, J. Chamberlain (Eds.), Handbook of community sentiment (pp. 3–28). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1899-1Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2016). Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12(1), 489–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945Monahan, J., & Skeem, J. L. (2016). Risk assessment in criminal sentencing. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 12(1), 489–513. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-092945Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.783Mossman, D. (1994). Assessing predictions of violence: Being accurate about accuracy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 783–792. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.62.4.783National Conference of State Legislatures. (2022, January 5). Legislation related to artificial intelligence. https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/2020-legislation-related-to-artificial-intelligence.aspxNational Conference of State Legislatures. (2022, January 5). Legislation related to artificial intelligence. https://www.ncsl.org/research/telecommunications-and-information-technology/2020-legislation-related-to-artificial-intelligence.aspxParasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A, Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354Parasuraman, R., Sheridan, T. B., & Wickens, C. D. (2000). A model for types and levels of human interaction with automation. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Part A, Systems and Humans, 30(3), 286–297. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.844354Perry, W. L. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Rand Corporation*.Perry, W. L. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Rand Corporation*.Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Social Studies of Science, 14(3), 399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631284014003004Ramirez, M. D. (2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1467-9221.2008.00660.xRamirez, M. D. (2008). Procedural perceptions and support for the U.S. Supreme Court. Political Psychology, 29(5), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1111/i.1467-9221.2008.00660.xRigano, C. (2019). Using artificial intelligence to address criminal justice needs. National Institute of Justice Journal, 280, 1–10. https://www.oip.gov/pdffiles1/nii/252038.pdfRigano, C. (2019). Using artificial intelligence to address criminal justice needs. National Institute of Justice Journal, 280, 1–10. https://www.oip.gov/pdffiles1/nii/252038.pdfRitchie, K. L., Cartledge, C., Growns, B., Yan, A., Wang, Y., Guo, K., Kramer, R. S. S., Edmond, G., Martire, K. A., San Roque, M., & White, D. (2021). Public attitudes towards the use of automatic facial recognition technology in criminal justice systems around the world. PloS One, 16(10), e0258241-e0258241. https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0258241Ritchie, K. L., Cartledge, C., Growns, B., Yan, A., Wang, Y., Guo, K., Kramer, R. S. S., Edmond, G., Martire, K. A., San Roque, M., & White, D. (2021). Public attitudes towards the use of automatic facial recognition technology in criminal justice systems around the world. PloS One, 16(10), e0258241-e0258241. https://doi.org/10.1371/iournal.pone.0258241Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personality. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personality. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Rueda, J., Rodriguez, J. D., Jounou, I. P., Hortal-Carmona, J., Ausin, T., & Rodriguez-Arias, D. (2022). “Just” accuracy? Procedural fairness demands explainability in AI-based medical resource allocations. AI & Society, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01614-9Rueda, J., Rodriguez, J. D., Jounou, I. P., Hortal-Carmona, J., Ausin, T., & Rodriguez-Arias, D. (2022). “Just” accuracy? Procedural fairness demands explainability in AI-based medical resource allocations. AI & Society, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01614-9Schlesinger, T. (2005). Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing. Justice Quarterly, 22(2), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820500088929Schlesinger, T. (2005). Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing. Justice Quarterly, 22(2), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820500088929Scott, A. (2021). Difference between algorithm and artificial intelligence. Data Science Central. https://www.datasciencecentral.com/difference-between-algorithm-and-artificial-intelligence/Scott, A. (2021). Difference between algorithm and artificial intelligence. Data Science Central. https://www.datasciencecentral.com/difference-between-algorithm-and-artificial-intelligence/Sharan, N. N., & Romano, D. M. (2020). The effects of personality and locus of control on trust in humans versus artificial intelligence. Heliyon, 6(8), e04572. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.heliyon.2020.e04572Sharan, N. N., & Romano, D. M. (2020). The effects of personality and locus of control on trust in humans versus artificial intelligence. Heliyon, 6(8), e04572. https://doi.org/10.1016/i.heliyon.2020.e04572Sherman, S. J. (1973). Internal-external control and its relationship to attitude change under different social influence techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034216Sherman, S. J. (1973). Internal-external control and its relationship to attitude change under different social influence techniques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(1), 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034216Shroff, R. (2019, September 25). Artificial intelligence explained in simple terms. Medium. https://medium.com/mytake/artificial-intelligence-explained-in-simple-english-part-1-2-1b28c1f762cfShroff, R. (2019, September 25). Artificial intelligence explained in simple terms. Medium. https://medium.com/mytake/artificial-intelligence-explained-in-simple-english-part-1-2-1b28c1f762cfSmith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1997). Locus of control and affectivity by gender and occupational status: A 14 nation study. Sex Roles, 36(1–2), 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766238Smith, P. B., Dugan, S., & Trompenaars, F. (1997). Locus of control and affectivity by gender and occupational status: A 14 nation study. Sex Roles, 36(1–2), 51–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02766238Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed Black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38(1), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/L1745-9125.2000.tb00891.xSpohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2000). The imprisonment penalty paid by young, unemployed Black and Hispanic male offenders. Criminology, 38(1), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/L1745-9125.2000.tb00891.xStarke, C., & Lunich, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence for political decision-making in the European Union: Effects on citizens’ perceptions of input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Data & Policy, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.19Starke, C., & Lunich, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence for political decision-making in the European Union: Effects on citizens’ perceptions of input, throughput, and output legitimacy. Data & Policy, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2020.19Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.Turner, K. B., & Johnson, J. B. (2005). A comparison of bail amounts for Hispanics, Whites, and African Americans: A single county analysis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885880Turner, K. B., & Johnson, J. B. (2005). A comparison of bail amounts for Hispanics, Whites, and African Americans: A single county analysis. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(1), 35–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02885880Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038Victor, A. (2021, July 24). 10 uses of artificial intelligence in day to day life. Daffodil. https://insights.daffodilsw.com/blog/10-uses-of-artificial-intelligence-in-day-to-day-lifeVictor, A. (2021, July 24). 10 uses of artificial intelligence in day to day life. Daffodil. https://insights.daffodilsw.com/blog/10-uses-of-artificial-intelligence-in-day-to-day-lifeWallston, B. S., & Wallston, K. A. (1978). Locus of control and health: A review of the literature. Health Education Monographs, 6(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817800600102Wallston, B. S., & Wallston, K. A. (1978). Locus of control and health: A review of the literature. Health Education Monographs, 6(1), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817800600102Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.Zadgaonkar, A. V., & Agrawal, A. J. (2021). An overview of information extraction techniques for legal document analysis and processing. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 11(6), 5450–5457. https://doi.org/10.11591/iiece.v11i6.pp5450-5457Zadgaonkar, A. V., & Agrawal, A. J. (2021). An overview of information extraction techniques for legal document analysis and processing. International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering, 11(6), 5450–5457. https://doi.org/10.11591/iiece.v11i6.pp5450-5457Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154Zelditch, M., Jr. (2018). Legitimacy theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 340–371). Stanford University Press**.Zelditch, M., Jr. (2018). Legitimacy theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 340–371). Stanford University Press**.* Признана нежелательной организацией в РФ с 06.12.2023 / Recognized as an undesirable organization in the Russian Federation as of 06.12.2023* Признана нежелательной организацией в РФ с 06.12.2023 / Recognized as an undesirable organization in the Russian Federation as of 06.12.2023** Принадлежит нежелательной организации в РФ / Belongs to an undesirable organization in the Russian Federation.** Принадлежит нежелательной организации в РФ / Belongs to an undesirable organization in the Russian Federation.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.