Content Analysis of Judges’ Sentiments Toward Artificial Intelligence Risk Assessment Tools

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.

1. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). The psychology of criminal conduct. Routledge.

2. Andrews, P. (2022, October 13). Designing for legitimacy. Apolitical. https://apolitical.co/solution-articles/en/designing-for-legitimacy

3. 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.

4. 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.12167

5. Barabas, 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.html

6. Belur, 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/10.1177/0049124118799372

7. Buhlmann, 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/10.1080/01402382.2011.546576

8. Burstein, 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/10.1177/106591290305600103

9. Burstein, 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.2006.0083

10. Bushway, 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/10.2307/3185415

11. Buskey, B., & Woods, A. (2018). Making sense of pretrial risk assessments. National Association of Defense Lawyers. https://www.nacdl.org/Article/June2018-MakingSenseofPretrialRiskAsses

12. Cassata, C. (2019, December 20). Facebook using artificial intelligence to help suicidal people. Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/facebook-artificial-intelligence-help-suicidal-people

13. Clawson, 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/10.1177/1532673X01029006002

14. Dawes, 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.34.7.571

15. de 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-w

16. Demuth, 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.x

17. Demuth, 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.2004.51.2.222

18. Diab, 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.x

19. Dietvorst, 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/10.1177/0956797620948841

20. Dietvorst, 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/xge0000033

21. Eastwood, 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.741

22. Farnsworth, 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/10.1177/1532673X02238580

23. 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.

24. 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.3518482

25. 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/

26. 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.

27. 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/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.19

28. Gurr, T. (1974). Persistence and change in political systems, 1800-1971. American Political Science Review, 68(4), 1482–1504. https://doi.org/10.2307/1959937

29. Harris, 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.pdf

30. 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.

31. 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/10.1080/23276665.2020.1816188

32. Hoff, 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/10.1177/0018720814547570

33. IBM Cloud Education. (2020, June 3). What is artificial intelligence? https://www.ibm.com/cloud/learn/what-is-artificial-intelligence

34. Jones, L. (2020, October 6). ProPublica’s misleading machine bias. Medium. https://medium.com/@llewhinkes/propublicas-misleading-machine-bias-19c971549a18

35. Knowles, 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/2208.00681

36. Kramer, 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/10.1145/3278721.3278752

37. Lee, 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/10.1145/3359284

38. 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/

39. 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/10.1108/02683940110391517

40. 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.

41. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Springer Science & Business Media.

42. 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.v2i3.65

43. Logg, 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.2018.12.005

44. McKay, 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/10.1080/10345329.2019.1658694

45. Miller, 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/10.1007/978-1-4939-1899-1

46. Monahan, 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-021815-092945

47. Mossman, 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.62.4.783

48. National 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.aspx

49. Parasuraman, 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/10.1109/3468.844354

50. Perry, W. L. (2013). Predictive policing: The role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Rand Corporation.

51. 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/10.1177/030631284014003004

52. Ramirez, 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.x

53. Rigano, 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.pdf

54. Ritchie, 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.0258241

55. Rotter, 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/h0092976

56. Rotter, J. B., Chance, J. E., & Phares, E. J. (1972). Applications of a social learning theory of personality. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

57. 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/s00146-022-01614-9

58. Schlesinger, T. (2005). Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing. Justice Quarterly, 22(2), 170–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820500088929

59. Scott, A. (2021). Difference between algorithm and artificial intelligence. Data Science Central. https://www.datasciencecentral.com/difference-between-algorithm-and-artificial-intelligence/

60. 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.e04572

61. Sherman, 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/h0034216

62. Shroff, R. (2019, September 25). Artificial intelligence explained in simple terms. Medium. https://medium.com/mytake/artificial-intelligence-explained-in-simple-english-part-1-2-1b28c1f762cf

63. Smith, 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/BF02766238

64. Spohn, 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.x

65. Starke, 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.2020.19

66. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. L. Erlbaum Associates.

67. 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/BF02885880

68. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

69. Victor, 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-life

70. Wallston, 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/10.1177/109019817800600102

71. Western, B. (2006). Punishment and inequality in America. Russell Sage Foundation.

72. 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.pp5450-5457

73. Zajonc, R. B. (2001). Mere exposure: A gateway to the subliminal. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(6), 224–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00154

74. Zelditch, M., Jr. (2018). Legitimacy theory. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 340–371). Stanford University Press.