AI in court: a step toward efficiency — or a slide into algorithmic opacity?

AI in the Courtroom: Between Justice and the Algorithmic Abyss?

24 Jul 2025 in

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Henning Lorenzen

AI in the courtroom: a game-changer or a gamble?

Algorithms can analyze data faster than any human, offering consistency and speed. But justice is more than logic — it’s empathy, context, and humanity. Can a machine, no matter how advanced, truly grasp the nuances of human experience that shape just outcomes?

The Promise and the Peril

The promise of AI is alluring: faster verdicts, fewer errors, impartiality free from human emotion or fatigue. Yet beneath this promise lies a profound uncertainty. AI systems learn from data shaped by history — a history marked by inequality, bias, and systemic flaws. The risk is that these prejudices become encoded in the very algorithms meant to ensure fairness, perpetuating injustice under the guise of objectivity.

Justice as a Human Endeavor

Justice is not blind computation; it is an ongoing dialogue between law, ethics, and society’s evolving values. It demands interpretation, mercy, and an ability to weigh conflicting truths. AI lacks the conscience to hesitate, to question, or to balance hard rules against compassion. When a machine renders a verdict, who bears responsibility? The programmers, the judges who deploy the technology, or the AI itself?

The Crossroads of Accountability

We face a pivotal crossroads: embrace AI as a tool that enhances human judgment or risk surrendering decision-making to systems we do not fully understand or control. This gamble raises fundamental questions about accountability, transparency, and the essence of justice itself.

“Justice cannot be for one side alone, but must be for both.” — Eleanor Roosevelt

What Does Reality in the Courtroom Actually Look Like?

While the debate about AI and justice often remains theoretical, several countries have already taken concrete steps to integrate AI into their judicial systems — with strikingly different results.

United States – risk assessments. Algorithms such as COMPAS help judges estimate a defendant’s likelihood of re-offending and influence bail or sentencing decisions. Investigations have shown racial disparities in the tool’s predictions, sparking nationwide debate on transparency and bias.

Estonia – the “robot judge.” The digitally minded Baltic nation is piloting an AI system to decide small-claims disputes under €7,000, aiming to clear backlogs and cut costs. Human judges can overrule the machine, but the experiment tests how far automation can go without eroding due-process safeguards.

China – smart courts at scale. Thousands of cases now pass through AI-equipped “internet courts” that draft rulings, check precedents, and even appear as virtual judges on screen. In 2024 the Supreme People’s Court unveiled a nationwide AI platform built on 320 million legal documents, signalling ever-deeper integration of algorithms into judicial work.

United Kingdom – cautious adoption. Guidance issued to judges in England and Wales allows AI tools to help draft opinions or summarise lengthy evidence — so long as judges verify every word and accept full responsibility. The move illustrates a middle path: augmentation rather than automation.

Supporting, Not Replacing

Ultimately, AI can support the legal process — sifting through mountains of evidence, highlighting inconsistencies, and standardizing routine tasks. But the final judgment must remain a profoundly human act, rooted in empathy, reflection, and moral responsibility. Until AI can understand not just the letter of the law, but its spirit, the scales of justice cannot tip in favor of machines.

The courtroom of the future may be digital — but justice will still require a human heart. Still, there is reason to believe that the age of algorithmic justice has only just begun.

The time to set AI judicial standards is now — before the gavel falls without a human hand.