Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Artificial Intelligence and Sentencing from a Human Rights Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Artificial Intelligence, Social Harms and Human Rights

Part of the book series: Critical Criminological Perspectives ((CCRP))

  • 1001 Accesses

Abstract

The development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is still in its infancy, but its potentials and dangers are discussed controversially. The legal sector will be affected by the AI-driven technological evolution, too. There are possible advantages of the use of AI in this context: sentencing decisions might become more uniform and consistent, proceedings shorter and less expensive, human judges might be relieved from workload and could focus more on severe and complex criminal law cases. In a nutshell: the functional capability of the criminal justice system might benefit from an “algorithmic boost” of efficiency. The temptation to compensate the problem of limited judicial resources and procedural delays by using machines with almost infinite working capacity might become irresistible. From a human rights perspective, however, it is questionable if “robot judges” assisting or even replacing human judges would be permissible in criminal law with its grave consequences for the individual defendant´s life. We will address this question with regard to the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), analyzing the ban of inhuman or degrading treatment (Art. 3 ECHR), the principle of fair trial (Art. 6 (1) ECHR), the principle of legality (Art. 7 ECHR), the protection of privacy (Art. 8 ECHR) and the ban of discrimination (Art. 14 ECHR)—bearing in mind that the outcome of a legal assessment strongly depends on the (hitherto unclear) concrete shape AI-based sentencing systems might take in the future. Nonetheless, we will also outline potential countermeasures like the use of explainable, transparent AI. The article concludes with a plea for a robust legal culture that is focused on improving sentencing practice through processes of deliberation and experimentation (which might also include technological experiments) rather than replacing it with technology solutions that put humans increasingly out of the loop.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The acronym stands for “Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions.”.

  2. 2.

    Art. 1 of the Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR contains a general prohibition of discrimination that encompassed the equal enjoyment of every right set forth by law. However, the Protocol has only been ratified by 20 member states so far (inter alia not by France, Germany, the UK).

References

  • Aebi, M.F., Caneppele, S., Harrendorf, S., Hashimoto, Y.Z., Jehle, J.-M., Khan, T.S., Kühn, O., Lewis, C., Molnar, L., Smit, P., Þórisdóttir, R. and the ESB Network of National Correspondents (2021). European sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics—2021 (6 ed.). Göttingen University Press: Göttingen.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alfaia Sampaio, E., Seixas, J.J. & Gomes, P.J. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and the judicial ruling. Themis Competition 2019, Semi-Final D, Team Portugal I. https://www.ejtn.eu/PageFiles/17916/TEAM%20PORTUGAL%20I%20TH%202019%20D.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2022.

  • Alufaisan, Y., Marusich, L. R., Bakdash, J. Z., Zhou, Y. & Kantarcioglu, M. (2021). Does explainable artificial intelligence improve human decision-making? In: Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 35(8), 6618–6626. https://www.ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/16819. Accessed 20 April 2022.

  • Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S. & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. And it’s biased against blacks. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • Bagaric, M., Hunter, D. & Stobbs, N. (2020). Erasing the bias against using artificial intelligence to predict future criminality. Algorithms are color blind and never tire. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 88, 1037–1082.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagaric, M., Svilar, J., Bull, M., Hunter, D. and Stobbs, N. (2021). The solution to the pervasive bias and discrimination in the criminal justice. Transparent artificial intelligence. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3795911. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • Bogdan, S. (2020). Country Report Romania. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union (Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 427–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bontrager, S., Barrick, K., & Stupi, E. (2013). Gender and sentencing. Meta-analysis of contemporary research. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 16, 349–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Botha, H. (2009). Human dignity in comparative perspective. Stellenbosch Law Review, 20, 171–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brayne, S. & Christin, A. (2021). Technologies of crime prediction. Reception of algorithms in policing and criminal courts. Social Problems, 68, 608–624

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burrell, J. (2016). How the Machine ‘Thinks’. Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butz, F., Christoph, S., Sommerer, L., Harrendorf, S., Kaspar, J. & Höffler, K. (2021). Automatisierte Risikoprognosen im Kontext von Bewährungsentscheidungen. Bewährungshilfe, 68, 241–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bygrave, L.A. (2020). Machine learning, cognitive sovereignty and data protection rights with respect to automated decisions. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3721118. Accessed 22 November 2020.

  • Carlson, A.M. (2017). The need for transparency in the age of predictive sentencing algorithms. Iowa Law Review, 103, 303-329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chander, A. (2017). The racist algorithm? Michigan Law Review, 115, 1023–1045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. (2021). Chinese scientists develop AI ‘prosecutor’ that can press its own charges. South China Morning Post, 26 December 2021. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3160997/chinese-scientists-develop-ai-prosecutor-can-press-its-own. Accessed 24 January 2022.

  • Christin, A. (2019). Predictive algorithms and criminal sentencing. In: Bessner D and Guilhot N (eds.) The Decisionist Imagination. Sovereignty, Social Science, and Democracy in the 20th Century, Berghahn Books: New York, 272–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commissioner for Human Rights. (2019). Unboxing artificial intelligence. 10 steps to protect Human Rights. Council of Europe. https://rm.coe.int/unboxing-artificial-intelligence-10-steps-to-protect-human-rights-reco/1680946e64. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • Committee of Experts on Internet Intermediaries (MSI-NET). (2018). Algorithms and human rights. Study on the human rights dimensions of automated data processing techniques and possible regulatory implications. Council of Europe study, DGI(2017)12. https://rm.coe.int/algorithms-and-human-rights-study-on-the-human-rights-dimension-of-aut/1680796d10. Accessed 3 February 2022.

  • Council of Europe. (2021). EU accession to the ECHR. https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-intergovernmental-cooperation/accession-of-the-european-union-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights. Accessed 24 January 2022.

  • Cyphert, A.B. (2020). Reprogramming recidivism. The First Step Act and algorithmic prediction of risk. Seton Hall Law Review, 51, 331–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danaher, J. (2020). Welcoming robots into the moral circle: A defence of ethical behaviourism. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2023–2049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deeks, A. (2019). The judicial demand for explainable artificial intelligence. Columbia Law Review, 119, 1829–1850.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dressel, J. & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duwe, G. & Kim, K. (2017). Out with the old and in with the new? An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms to predict recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28, 570–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duwell, M. (2014). Human Dignity: Concept, Discussions, Philosophical Perspectives: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. In: Duwell, M., Braarvig, J., Brownsword, R. & Mieth, D. (eds.) Cambridge Handbook on Human Dignity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 23–50.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dymitruk, M. (2019). The right to a fair trial in automated civil proceedings. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 13, 27-44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elsner, B., Aebi, M.F., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Gillieron, G., Hakeri, H., Jehle, J.-M., Killias, M., Lewis, C., Peters, J., Roth, E., Smit, P., Sobota, P., Turkovic, K., Wade, M. & Zila, J. (2008). The Criminal Justice Approach: Case Examples. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 14, 123-132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). (2018). European Ethical Charter on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems and their environment. https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) (2021). Overview 1959–2020 ECHR. https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Overview_19592020_ENG.pdf. Accessed 1 February 2022.

  • European Criminal Policy Institute (2020). Category model for the harmonisation of criminal sanctions in Europe. In Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union – Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 707–742.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fair Trials (2020). Regulating artificial intelligence for use in criminal justice systems in the EU. Policy paper. https://www.fairtrials.org/sites/default/files/RegulatingArtificialIntelligenceforUseinCriminalJusticeSystems-FairTrials.pdf. Accessed 3 February 2022.

  • Ghasemi, M., Anvari, D., Atapour, M., Wormith, J.S., Stockdale, K.C. & Spiteri, R.J. (2021). The application of machine learning to a general risk-need assessment instrument in the prediction of criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48, 518–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gipson Rankin, S.M. (2021). Technological tethered. Potential impact of untrustworthy artificial intelligence in criminal justice risk assessment instruments. Washington and Lee Law Review, 78, 647–724.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grabenwarter, C. & Pabel, K. (2021). Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention (7th ed.). München: C.H. Beck.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greco, L. (2020). Richterliche Macht ohne richterliche Verantwortung. Warum es den Roboter-Richter nicht geben darf. Rechtswissenschaft, 11, 29–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grundies, V. (2016). Gleiches Recht für alle? – Eine empirische Analyse lokaler Unterschiede in der Sanktionspraxis in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. In Neubacher, F. & Bögelein, N. (eds.) Krise – Kriminalität – Kriminologie, Mönchengladbach: Forum Verlag Godesberg, 511–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grundies, V. (2018). Regionale Unterschiede in der gerichtlichen Sanktionspraxis in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Eine empirische Analyse. In Hermann, D. & Pöge, A. (eds.) Kriminalsoziologie. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 295–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herz, C. (2020). Striving for consistency: Why German sentencing needs reform. German Law Journal, 21, 1625–1648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinkkanen, V. & Lappi-Seppälä, T. (2011). Sentencing theory, policy, and research in the nordic countries. Crime and Justice, 40, 349–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehle, J.-M., Lewis, C., Nagtegaal, M., Palmowski, N., Pyrcak-Górowska, M., van der Wolf M. & Zila, J. (2021). Dealing with dangerous offenders in Europe. A comparative study of provisions in England and Wales, Germany, the Netherlands, Poland and Sweden. Criminal Law Forum, 32, 181–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaspar, J., Höffler, K. & Harrendorf, S. (2020). Datenbanken, Online-Votings und künstliche Intelligenz—Perspektiven evidenzbasierter Strafzumessung im Zeitalter von “Legal Tech”. Neue Kriminalpolitik, 32, 35–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kehl, D., Guo, P. & Kessler, S. (2017). Algorithms in the criminal justice system. Assessing the use of risk assessments in sentencing. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33746041. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • Kohn, B. (2021). Künstliche Intelligenz und Strafzumessung, Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Google Scholar 

  • Länderarbeitsgruppe. (2019). Legal Tech: Herausforderungen für die Justiz. Abschlussbericht. https://www.schleswig-holstein.de/DE/Landesregierung/II/Minister/Justizministerkonferenz/Downloads/190605_beschluesse/TOPI_11_Abschlussbericht.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=1. Accessed 8 February 2022.

  • Langford, M. (2020). Taming the digital leviathan: Automated decision-making and international human rights. American Journal of International Law Unbound, 114, 141–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lappi‐Seppälä, T. (2007). Penal policy in Scandinavia. Crime and Justice, 36, 217–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lara, F. & Deckers, J. (2020). Artificial intelligence as a Socratic assistant for moral enhancement. Neuroethics, 13, 275–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindner, B., Neumann, L. & Pohlmann, S. (2020). Comparative Conclusion. In Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, pp. 517–540.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyell, D. & Coiera, E. (2017). Automation bias and verification complexity. A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 24, 423–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mavronicola, N. (2015). Crime, Punishment and Article 3 ECHR: Puzzles and Prospects of Applying an Absolute Right in a Penal Context. Human Rights Law Review, 15, 721–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Ladewig, J. & Nettesheim, M. (2017). Artikel 8 EMRK. Recht auf Achtung des Privat—und Familienlebens. In: Meyer-Ladewig, J., Nettesheim, M. & v. Raumer, S. (eds.) EMRK: Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention—Handkommentar (4 ed.) Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLuhan, M. & Fiore, Q. (2001). The Medium is the Message. An Inventory of Effects, Corte Madera: Gingki Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research. Explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21(4), 439–466.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nieto-Martín, A., Muñoz de Morales Romero, M. & Rodríguez Yagüe, C. (2020). Country Report Spain. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 149–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nink, D. (2021). Justiz und Algorithmen. Über die Schwächen menschlicher Entscheidungsfindung und die Möglichkeiten neuer Technologien in der Rechtsprechung. Nomos: Baden-Baden.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Poursabzi-Sangdeh, F., Goldstein, D. G., Hofman, J. M., Vaughan, J. W. & Wallach, H. (2018). Manipulating and measuring model interpretability. In: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 237, 1–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quattrocolo, S. (2019). An introduction to AI and criminal justice in Europe. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 5, 1519–1554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainie, L. & Anderson, J. (2017). Code-dependent: Pros and cons of the algorithm age. https://apo.org.au/node/74277. Accessed 7 November 2022.

  • Reiling, A.D. (2020). Courts and artificial intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11, Art. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostalski, F. & Völkening, M. (2019). Smart Sentencing. Ein neuer Ansatz für Transparenz richterlicher Strafzumessungsentscheidungen. Kriminalpolitische Zeitschrift, 265–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruppert, F. (2021). Strafzumessung am Scheideweg? Legal Tech und Strafzumessung, Kriminalpolitische Zeitschrift, 90–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudin, C., Wang, C. & Coker, B. (2020). The age of secrecy and unfairness in recidivism prediction. Harvard Data Science Review 2.1. https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/7z10o269/release/4. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • Russell, S.J. & Norvig, P. (2021). Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach (4 ed.). Pearson: Hoboken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger, H. (2020). Strafzumessung in den USA. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 541–563.

    Google Scholar 

  • Satzger, H., Lindner, B. & Pohlmann, S. (2020). Research Report. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shank, D.B., DeSanti, A. & Maninger, T. (2019). When are artificial intelligence versus human agents faulted for wrongdoing? Moral attributions after individual and joint decisions. Information, Communication & Society, 22, 648–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons, R. (2018). Big Data, Machine Judges, and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System. UC Davis Law Review, 1067–1118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerer, L. (2020). Personenbezogenes Predictive Policing. Kriminalwissenschaftliche Untersuchung über die Automatisierung der Kriminalprognose. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSW Law Journal, 41, 1114–1133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C. (2015). Evolution of sentencing research. Criminology and Public Policy, 14, 225–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staffler, L. & Jany, O. (2020). Künstliche Intelligenz und Strafrechtspflege—eine Orientierung, Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 15, 164–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier, D., Painter-Davis, N. & Ulmer, J. (2017). Intersectionality of race, ethnicity, gender, and age on criminal punishment. Sociological Perspectives, 60, 810–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinborn, S. (2020). Länderbericht Polen. In: Satzger, H. (ed.) Harmonisierung strafrechtlicher Sanktionen in der Europäischen Union—Harmonisation of Criminal Sanctions in the European Union. Nomos: Baden-Baden, 333–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tigard, D.W. (2021). Artificial moral responsibility: How we can and cannot hold machines responsible. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 30, 435–447.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulenaers, J. (2020). The impact of artificial intelligence on the right to a fair trial. Towards a robot judge? Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 11, article number: 20200008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ünver, H.A. (2018). Artificial Intelligence, Authoritarianism and the Future of Political Systems, Centre for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep26084. Accessed 22 November 2021.

  • Vorhaus (2002). Part One: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Common Law World Review, 31, 374–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachter, S. & Mittelstadt, B. (2019). A right to reasonable inferences: re-thinking data protection law in the age of big data and AI. Columbia Business Law Review, 494–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, C., Han, B., Patel, B., Mohideen, F. & Rudin, C. (2020). In pursuit of interpretable, fair and accurate machine learning for criminal recidivism prediction. https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.04176. Accessed 24 January 2022.

  • Wooldredge, J., Frank, J., Goulette, N. & Travis, L. (2015). Is the impact of cumulative disadvantage on sentencing greater for black defendants? Criminology and Public Policy, 14, 187–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Završnik, A. (2018). Algorithmic crime control. In: Završnik A (ed.) Big Data, Crime and Social Control, Routledge: New York, 131–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Završnik, A. (2020). Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems and human rights, ERA Forum, 20, 567–583.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zuiderveen Borgesius, F. (2018). Discrimination, artificial intelligence and algorithmic decision-making. https://rm.coe.int/discrimination-artificial-intelligence-and-algorithmic-decision-making/1680925d73. Accessed 22 November 2021.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Criminology and Penology, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany

    Johannes Kaspar & Stephan Christoph

  2. Department of Criminology, Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Comparative Criminal Law and Justice, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany

    Stefan Harrendorf

  3. Department of Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology, University Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany

    Felix Butz & Katrin Höffler

  4. Criminology, Criminal Compliance, Risk Management and Penal Law, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany

    Lucia Sommerer

Authors
  1. Johannes Kaspar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Harrendorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felix Butz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katrin Höffler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucia Sommerer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Stephan Christoph
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefan Harrendorf .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Aleš Završnik

  2. Ministry of Labour, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana, Slovenia

    Katja Simončič

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kaspar, J., Harrendorf, S., Butz, F., Höffler, K., Sommerer, L., Christoph, S. (2023). Artificial Intelligence and Sentencing from a Human Rights Perspective. In: Završnik, A., Simončič, K. (eds) Artificial Intelligence, Social Harms and Human Rights. Critical Criminological Perspectives. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19149-7_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19149-7_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-19148-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-19149-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation