About Artificial Intelligence Tools in Criminal Procedure, Judicial Discretion and Criminal Procedural Law Safeguards

Ogurlu, Dr. Cuneyt Samil, Огурлу, Доктор Джунейт Самиль

Жамият ва инновациялар / Общество и инновации / Society and innovations · 2026-yil

Annotatsiya

In addition to the conveniences it has brought to administrative processes, artificial intelligence has also rapidly transformed judicial decision-making. These developments, which also affect criminal cases, are understandably attractive in the fields of criminal law and criminal procedure. Courts and prosecution offices are under pressure to deal with large case files, multilingual materials, repetitive documents, backlogs of physical files and audio recordings, as well as increasing expectations that disputes be resolved within a reasonable time. To meet these expectations, artificial intelligence-based tools may assist in classifying case files, transcription, translation, anonymization, file management and tracking, and the preparation and completion of procedural documents. In addition to the benefits of such assistive tools, artificial intelligence may also be incorporated into criminal judges' decision-support mechanisms in matters such as arrest, sentencing, risk of recidivism, dangerousness, the defendant's personal circumstances and the use of precedent decisions. However, because all these issues concern constitutional rights and freedoms, the matter is highly sensitive. This study argues that a balanced relationship should be established between the use of artificial intelligence and the concepts of judicial discretion, the defendant's right to defense, procedural justice in the trial process, and the rule of law, which must prevail across the judiciary and other state powers. The main claim of this study is that artificial intelligence applications in criminal justice should be assessed according to the risk they create in legal evaluation and should not be used in a biased manner. A system that merely helps organize a case file and a system that produces a risk score capable of affecting individuals' fundamental rights and freedoms cannot be placed in the same legal category. The main argument developed by the study is that algorithmic outputs generated through artificial intelligence can assist in criminal cases. However, artificial intelligence cannot fulfill the judge's obligation to justify the verdict, evaluate the evidence or determine the outcome of the case. The use of AI in litigation can gain legitimacy only if its operation is transparent, explainable, open to adversarial challenge, and subject to genuine human oversight. The article makes a clear distinction between procedural support systems used during the trial and artificial intelligence systems that touch the core area of criminal proceedings. In this regard, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, the CEPEJ European Charter of Ethics, the European Court of Human Rights' case law on confrontation rights and undisclosed evidence, and the State v. Loomis case are considered in assessing the conveniences, challenges and shortcomings posed by the COMPAS algorithm. This article uses doctrinal research and comparative law methodology. European and United States practices are analyzed in outline, and these practices are evaluated together with international soft law instruments. The conclusion reached here is that the principle of legality and the rule of law in AI-supported criminal justice should not be sacrificed for the conveniences provided by information technologies. Rather than focusing only on the complexity of these technologies, it is necessary to ask whether they serve to protect fundamental values such as judicial independence, equality of arms, the right to effective defense, the right to trial within a reasonable time and the right to a fair trial. For this reason, the use of artificial intelligence systems in the judiciary should be evaluated according to whether they touch core areas such as fundamental rights and freedoms and according to their procedural functions. On this basis, this study proposes a procedural model that can accommodate technological innovation without weakening constitutional guarantees in criminal cases.

Maqola ma’lumotlari
MualliflarOgurlu, Dr. Cuneyt Samil, Огурлу, Доктор Джунейт Самиль
JurnalЖамият ва инновациялар / Общество и инновации / Society and innovations
Nashr sanasi2026-06-05
Jild7
Son3
Betlar491-514
TilIngliz
DOI10.47689/2181-1415-vol7-iss3-pp491-514

Kalit so‘zlar

уголовный процесс, искусственный интеллект, алгоритмическая оценка рисков, судейское усмотрение, право на защиту, объяснимый искусственный интеллект, COMPAS, нормы процессуального права, алгоритмическая подотчетность, Criminal procedure, artificial intelligence, algorithmic risk assessment, judge's discretion, right to defense, explainable artificial intelligence, COMPAS, procedural law rules, algorithmic accountability

Ilmiy soha

Жамият ва инновациялар / Общество и инновации / Society and innovations jurnalidan boshqa maqolalar

Жамият ва инновациялар / Общество и инновации / Society and innovations — barcha maqolalar