Use of AI Risk Assessment for Conditional Release based on Principles of Justice and Protection of Human Rights
Abstract
The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in parole risk assessments in Indonesia is beginning to be considered as a policy alternative to address the problem of correctional overcrowding and the limitations of conventional assessment mechanisms. However, to date, there is no specific and comprehensive legal regulation governing the use of AI in the parole decision-making process. This situation creates a normative gap that could potentially raise issues concerning the principles of legal certainty, justice, and the protection of human rights for prisoners. This study employs normative legal research methods with a statutory and comparative legal approach. The analysis is conducted on the positive legal framework in Indonesia and compared with practices and regulations in several other jurisdictions, including the implementation of the COMPAS system in the United States and risk-based regulations in the EU AI Act in the European Union. The results show that the use of AI in parole assessments, if not accompanied by adequate legal regulations, has the potential to cause problems in the form of algorithmic bias, limited transparency due to black box mechanisms and challenges to the principle of accountability in administrative decision-making in the correctional sector. Based on these findings, this study emphasizes the importance of formulating a clear and measurable legal framework to regulate the use of AI as a supporting instrument for parole assessments. Such regulations should clarify the limitations of AI's function as a decision-making tool, along with human oversight mechanisms, principles of transparency, and accountability, so that its implementation remains aligned with the goals of the correctional system and the principles of human rights protection.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abdurrahman, A., & Pratiwi, D. (2023). Artificial intelligence and legal accountability in Indonesian criminal justice. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 30(2), 201–220.
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias: There’s software used across the country to predict future criminals. ProPublica.
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
Berk, R. et al. (2018). Fairness in criminal justice risk assessments. Sociological Methods & Research, 47(1), 3–44.
Citron, D. (2008). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1249–1313.
Crawford, K. (2016). Artificial intelligence’s white guy problem. The New York Times.
Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. Risk-based AI regulation in justice systems
Direktorat Jenderal Pemasyarakatan. (2024). Data Overcrowding Lapas Indonesia
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4(1).
Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating inequality. St. Martin’s Press Review Essay.
European Union. (2024). EU Artificial Intelligence Act
Floridi, L. et al. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework. Minds and Machines, 28, 689–707.
Gless, S., Silverman, E., & Weigend, T. (2016). If robots cause harm—Who is to blame? Criminal Law Forum, 27, 412–436.
Harcourt, B. (2007). Against prediction. University of Chicago Press Review Journal.
Harcourt, B. (2007). Against Prediction: Profiling, Policing, and Punishing in an Actuarial Age. University of Chicago Press.
Hildebrandt, M. (2016). Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 376.
Huq, A. (2019). Racial equity in algorithmic criminal justice. Duke Law Journal, 68(6), 1043–1134.
Kuner, C. et al. (2017). Risk-based regulation and data protection. International Data Privacy Law, 7(3), 190–203.
Larson, J. et al. (2016). How we analyzed the COMPAS recidivism algorithm. ProPublica.
Law No. 27 of 2022 concerning Personal Data Protection
Law No. 39 of 1999 concerning Human Rights
Lepri, B. et al. (2018). Fair, transparent, and accountable algorithmic decision-making. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4).
Lifter, M., & Tschiener, R. (2017). Industry 4.0 and legal transformation. Harvard Business Review.
Mantelero, A. (2018). AI and data protection. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(4).
Mittelstadt, B. et al. (2016). The ethics of algorithms. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
Muladi & Barda Nawawi Arief. (2010). Criminal Theories and Policies. Alumni.
Nugroho, H. (2023). AI in the Indonesian criminal justice system. Jurnal Daulat Hukum, 6(2).
Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 28(2).
Prasetyo, T. (2020). Individualization of crime. Journal of Criminal Law, 4(1).
Rahardjo, S. (2009). Law and Social Change. Genta Publishing.
Rahardjo, S. (2019). Progressive law and substantive justice. Progressive Law Journal, 15(1).
Richards, N., & King, J. (2014). Big data ethics. Wake Forest Law Review, 49.
Schwab, K. (2016). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum.
Selbst, A. et al. (2019). Fairness and abstraction in sociotechnical systems. FAT Conference Proceedings.
Setiadi, W. (2022). Overcrowding and correctional policy. Indonesian Journal of Legislation, 19(4).
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2015). Normative Legal Research. Rajawali Pers.
Surden, H. (2014). Machine learning and law. Washington Law Review, 89(1).
Susanto, A. (2021). Administrative discretion and AUPB. Journal of Public Administrative Law, 8(2).
Tene, O., & Polonetsky, J. (2013). Big data for all. Northwestern Journal of Technology & IP, 11.
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia
Udhistira, R. (2024). Risk assessment and criminal justice. Journal of Legal Studies, 11(1).
Veale, M., & Edwards, L. (2018). Clarity, surprises, and the GDPR. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2).
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation may not exist. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2).
Wicaksono, A. (2022). Human Rights-Based Corrections in Indonesia. Human Rights Journal, 13(3).
Zarsky, T. (2016). The trouble with algorithmic decisions. Administrative Law Review, 68.
Zuboff, S. (2019). Surveillance capitalism and law. Journal of Law & Society, 46
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v8i4.49971
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
View My Stats
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Jurnal Daulat Hukum has been indexed in:
