PETALING JAYA: The introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) sentencing systems in courts has sparked worries among advocates that sentences may not be meted out tempered with mercy.
In this regard, concerns have been raised about the accuracy and practicality of AI-based judgements, with some believing that computers may not interpret emotions as efficiently as a sitting judge.
Lawyer Mohamad Haniff Khatri Abdulla said the use of AI needs to be explored further to assess if it can evaluate the feelings and intentions of committing a crime and the accused better than a judge.
He said tempering justice with mercy under the criminal judicial system, which entails discretion based on emotions and feelings, is something only a human can do.
“There is a famous phrase in the criminal justice system, which is to ‘temper justice with mercy’.
“If a person steals bread or milk for babies because they are out of a job, don’t have money, and the family has not been eating for three to four days, that is where the tempering of justice with mercy comes in.
“That is where feelings will have to be predominant. Even if the prosecution proves the accused is guilty of theft, do you want to record a conviction?
“Tempering justice with mercy, which involves discretion based on emotions and feelings, is something that I feel can only be executed by a human who understands law and justice and the need to mete out that mercy,” he said.
Haniff added that he believes AI was started to enable judges or judicial officials to peruse records via computers and AI systems to find the nature of judgement, similar to a quick search.
“It is not about the intelligence but it is just like a computer. When you put in the keyword, you will get all the answers.
“If that is what it is, then it is not intelligence, it is just a fast search.”
Lawyer and Selangor Bar chairman Kokila Vaani Vadiveloo said AI sentencing was intended to ensure consistency by using algorithm databases that provide guidelines to presiding arbiters before passing sentences.
However, she said it runs the risk of undermining the rule of law and limiting individual rights when there are not sufficient protections in place to supervise AI sentencing.
“It will be rather hard for AI-based sentencing systems to ensure justice. The very objective of AI sentencing is to maintain consistency based on algorithm databases that provide guidelines to the given discretion of presiding arbiters before meting out sentences.
“The proposed AI mechanism will never replace the time-tested judicial discretion that is based on the human touch and emotional consideration of the presiding judges or magistrates who delve into every mitigation factor of any guilty plea.
“Justice must be tempered with mercy.
“Another worrying concern is when the presiding officers may accept the recommended sentencing using their discretion, despite the existence of exceptional mitigation factors.
“AI sentences can vary with changing times and public opinion. We just need more judges and prosecutors to handle the increasing caseload. AI cannot replace human judges and is merely a set of algorithms that cannot truly comprehend human needs.
“It is rather useful for the judiciary to consider the formulation of a sentencing council like Australia where the stakeholders recommend structured guidelines based on common human factors and emotions for every specific offence,” she said.
