Challenges of Applying Artificial Intelligence in the Sentencing Process; A Comparative Study of the Iranian and Common Law Legal Systems

Document Type : scientific

Authors

1 PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

2 Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.

Abstract

In recent years, the introduction of artificial intelligence into the realm of judicial governance has brought numerous challenges to legal systems. This article analyzes the characteristics of the sentencing process in both Common Law and Iranian legal systems and examines the challenges both systems face in applying AI in this process, thereby exploring the obstacles within the Iranian legal system to adopting AI-based judicial decision-making. Using a descriptive-analytical method and comparative study, this article investigates the challenges of applying AI at the sentencing stage in Common Law and the Iranian legal system. Findings indicate that despite shared challenges in both systems, Common Law has begun the transition to smart judicial governance through structural reforms, continued by developing statistical and data-driven guidelines, and ultimately led to the use of intelligent algorithms in judicial decision-making. In contrast, the Iranian legal system lacks the necessary infrastructure for effective AI integration due to the absence of quantitative and data-driven frameworks in sentencing, the considerable discretion of judges particularly in Ta'zir crimes, and the confused interplay of Sharia and custom within the sentencing system. An essential prerequisite for the responsible and effective use of AI in the Iranian legal system is, first, the standardization of the sentencing process and the development of data-driven frameworks within the judicial system to enable accurate data processing and increased predictability in judicial decisions. It is also necessary to gradually design indigenous models for applying AI in sentencing, tailored to Iran's jurisprudential and legal structures, which, while utilizing data analysis capacity, emphasize guaranteeing judicial independence and preserving the ethical and human aspects of judgment.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. آشوری، محمد؛ موحدی، جعفر. (1395ش). طریقیت یا موضوعیت روش دادرسی؛ مطالعۀ تطبیقی در فقه امامیه، حقوق اروپایی و حقوق موضوعه. فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری، 5 (16). 95-115. https://doi.org/10.22054/jclr.2016.6760
  2. ابراهیمی، شهرام. (1401ش). پیشگیری از تکرار جرم از طریق هوش مصنوعی؛ مقتضیات و محدودیت‌ها. آموزه‌های حقوق کیفری، 19(23)، 33-54. https://doi.org/10.30513/cld.2023.4345.1701
  3. احمدزاده، رسول و تام، مجتبی. (1399ش). ملاحظاتی دربارۀ قانون کاهش مجازات حبس تعزیری. تهران: مرکز مطبوعات و انتشارات قوۀ قضائیه.
  4. پیوندی، غلامرضا. (1395ش). حکمت‌های کیفر در نظام جزایی اسلام. حقوق اسلامی، 13(48). 91-125.
  5. تدین، عباس؛ باقری‌نژاد، زینب. (1399ش). هستی‌شناسی اصول بنیادین دادرسی کیفری. فصلنامۀ پژوهش حقوق کیفری، 9(33). 187-219. https://doi.org/10.22054/jclr.2020.49838.2060
  6. توحیدی نافع، جلال. (1399ش). تعیین مجازات در نظام قضایی ایران و مطالعۀ تطبیقی آن با حقوق انگلستان. رسالۀ دکتری، (استاد راهنما:حسین میرمحمد صادقی). گروه فقه و حقوق جزا. دانشگاه شهید مطهری(ره).
  7. حاجی‌ده‌آبادی، احمد؛ رجبی، محمد. (1395ش). تأملی بر مقررات توبه در قانون مجازات اسلامی مصوب 1392. حقوق اسلامی، 12(46). 7-31.
  8. ساکیانی، زهرا؛ واعظی، سید عباس. (1401ش). اثرسنجی سوگیری‌های شناختی بر کیفیت عدالت در تصمیم‌گیری قضات دادگاه‌های کیفری. مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، 86(119)، 245-269. https://doi.org/10.22106/jlj.2021.534564.4300
  9. سمائی، مهدی؛ حبیب‌زاده، محمدجعفر؛ نوبهار، رحیم. (1401ش). قاضی فضیلت‌مند؛ سهم فضیلت‌گرایی در نظریۀ قضاوت. مجله حقوقی دادگستری، 86(118)، 49-74. https://doi.org/10.22106/jlj.2021.538393.4391
  10. گاراپون، آنتوان؛ لاسگ، ژان. (2018). درک عدالت دیجیتال؛ انقلاب گرافیگی و گسست انسان‌شناختی، (ترجمه و تلخیص روح‌الدین کردعلیوند)، در: مریم عباچی و همکاران. (1400ش). دایرةالمعارف ریاضیات و علوم جنایی. تهران: میزان.
  11. صالحی مازندرانی، محمد؛ ملاباشی، صفیه‌سادات. (1395ش). تأثیر تمایز رویکردی حقوق مدرن و حقوق سنتی بر روش‌شناسی حقوقی. فصلنامۀ پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، 3(4)، 125-152. https://doi.org/10.22091/csiw.2018.1312.1086
  12. صبوری‌پور، مهدی. (1397ش). نظام‌مند‌سازی کیفرگزینی تعزیری در حقوق ایران. مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، 48(1)، 123-143. https://doi.org/10.22059/jqclcs.2018.243857.1248
  13. غلامی، حسین؛ باقری، نادیا. (1401ش). کاربست اصول راهبردی تعیین کیفر در قانون مجازات اسلامی 1392 و چالش‌های آن در آینۀ رویۀ قضایی (نمونۀ پژوهشی: شعب دادگاه‌های کیفری). پژوهش‌های حقوقی، 21(52)، 349- 392. https://doi.org/10.48300/jlr.2021.294684.1702
  14. محمودی جانکی، فیروز؛ طاهری، سمانه. (1399ش). ضرورت پیاده‌سازی الگوی کیفردهی رهنمودمحور در تعزیرات. مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‌شناسی، 50(1)، 231-256. https://doi.org/10.22059/jqclcs.2020.296459.1520
  15. ملکی، محمد؛ اسماعیلی، محسن. (1400ش). امکان اخلاق‌سازی در فرایند استدلال قضایی. مطالعات حقوق خصوصی، 51(2)، 183-202. https://doi.org/10.22059/jlq.2020.263757.1007082
  16. مهرا، نسرین. (1403ش). دانشنامۀ حقوق کیفری انگلستان. تهران: میزان.
  17. مهرا، نسرین؛ یکرنگی، محمد؛ مؤذن، عباس. (1397ش). سیاست کیفری ایران بعد از انقلاب در تعزیرات. مجلۀ حقوقی دادگستری، 103(82)، 175-200. https://doi.org/10.22106/jlj.2018.33935
  18. Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., & Lampos, V. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A Natural Language Processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science. 2. e93.
  19. Ashworth, A. (2009). Three Techniques for Reducing Sentence Disparity. In: A. von Hirsch and A. Ashworth & J. Roberts (Eds), Principled sentencing: Readings on theory and policy (3rd ed). Hart Publishing. 241-257.
  20. Mirko and Hunter. Dan. (2022). Enhancing the Integrity of the Sentencing Process through the Use of Artificial Intelligence, In: Jesper Ryberg. and Julian V. Roberts (Eds), Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 122-144.
  21. Netanel and. Baron. Shmuel .(2022). The Compassionate Computer: Algorithms, Sentencing, and Mercy, In: Jesper Ryberg, and Julian V. Roberts (Eds), Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 145-164.
  22. Benjamin and Douglas. Thomas. (2022). Learning to Discriminate: The Perfect Proxy Problem in Artificially Intelligent Sentencing, In: Jesper Ryberg, and Julian V. Roberts (Eds), Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 97-121.
  23. Chiao, V. (2018). Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sen‌tencing. Criminal Justice Ethics. 37(3), 238–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2018.1552359
  24. V. (2022). Transparency at Sentencing: Are Human Judges More Transparent Than Algorithms? In: Jesper Ryberg, and Julian V. Roberts (Eds), Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy. Oxford University Press .34-56.
  25. Cohen, M. (2015) . When Judges Have Reasons Not to Give Reasons: A Comparative Law Approach. Washington and Lee Law Review, 72(2), 483–571. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol72/iss2/3
  26. Fisher, T. (2011). Constitutionalism and the Criminal law: Rethinking Criminal Trial Bifurcation. University of Toronto Law Journal, 61(4), 811- 843. https://doi.org/10.3138/utlj.61.4.811
  27. Fortes, P. R. B. (2020). Paths to Digital Justice: Judicial Robots, Algorithmic Decision-Making, and Due Process. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 7(3), 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.23
  28. Hillman, N. L. (2019). The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Gauging the Risk of Recidivism. Judges' Journal, 58(1), 36–39. Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/judicial/resources/judges-journal/archive/use-artificial-intelligence-gauging-risk-recidivism/
  29. Hogarth, John. (1971). Sentencing as a Human Process. University of Toronto Press. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781487599553
  30. Nowacki, J.S. (2018). Federal Sentencing Guidelines and United States v. Booker: Social Context and Sentencing Disparity. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 29(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403415619987
  31. Roberts, J.V., Plesničar, M.M. (2015). Sentencing, Legitimacy, and Public Opinion. In: G. Meško & J. Tankebe. (Eds). Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal Justice. Springer. 33-51. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-09813-5_2
  32. Roberts, J.V. (2013). Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: Recent Developments and Emerging Issues. Law and contemporary problems. 76(1), 1–25. Available at: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol76/iss1/2
  33. Robinson, P. H., Goodwin, G.P., & Reisig, M.D. (2010). The Disutility of Injustice. New York University Law Review. 85(6). 1940–2033. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=1470905
  34. Robinson, P. H. (2011). Mercy, Crime Control, and Moral Credibility. In: A. Sarat (Ed), Merciful Judgments and Contemporary Society: Legal Problems, Legal Possibilities. Cambridge University Press. 99-117
  35. Roth, Andrea L. (2016). Trail by Machine. Georgetown Law Journal. 104 (5). 1245–1292 Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2743800
  36. Ryberg, J. (2024). Criminal Justice and Artificial Intelligence: How Should We Assess the Performance of Sentencing Algorithms. Philosophy & Technology. 37(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00694-3
  37. Ryberg, J. (2021). Sentencing Disparity and Artificial Intelligence. The Journal of Value Inquiry. 57(3), 447–462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10790-021-09835-9
  38. Ryberg, J. (2022). Sentencing and Algorithmic Transparency. In: Jesper Ryberg, and Julian V. Roberts (Eds), Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 13-33.
  39. Simmler, M., Brunner, S., Canova, G., & Schedler, K. (2022). Smart Criminal Justice: Exploring the Use of Algorithms in the Swiss Criminal Justice System. Artificial Intelligence and Law. 31(2). 213–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09310-1
  40. Simon, E., & Gaes, G. (1989). ASSYST - Computer Support for Guideline Sentencing. In: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. 195–200. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/74014.74039
  41. Zerilli, John (2022). Algorithmic Sentencing: Drawing Lessons from Human Factors Research. In: Jesper Ryberg, and Julian V. Roberts (Eds), Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, Studies in Penal Theory and Philosophy. Oxford University Press. 165-183.
Criminal Law Doctrines
Volume 21, Issue 28
December 2024
Pages 329-358

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 01 June 2025
  • Revise Date: 23 July 2025
  • Accept Date: 29 July 2025
  • Publish Date: 21 December 2024

Share

How to cite

Statistics