The Rise of AI: Debates Over The Pros and Cons of AI in Our Court Systems

Written By Ian .

Author: Puneet Kandola

The right to have a fair trial and reasonable bail might start to become threatened with the continued rise of AI. The use of Artificial Intelligence has become more apparent in the 21st century, with it not only taking part in the daily lives of people for work and school, but also in our courtrooms where the mental health and the risk of not having a fair trial could be put into the hands of an artificial intelligence on a computer. 

Though AI was first developed in the 1950s with John McCarthy first coining the term, its extended accessibility and better data storage allowed this technology to be used to a greater extent for jobs and everyday life. This larger extent can also be viewed through the use of AI in our court systems, where this increasingly used technology has brought up numerous issues through court cases and is used in helping make decisions for defendants as well, causing our court systems to rely negatively on technology and creating bias against a defendant, leading the judge to be largely persuaded. Though this might be true, many argue that there are some benefits to using AI in our courtrooms as well, especially in helping with easier communication and organization. 

Various cases in our judicial system have involved the use of technology, ranging from AI-created and controlled lawyers to AI produced evidence. According to the LA Times, as of April 2026 three lawyers in California have been accused by the State Bar for misusing AI to create false evidence during each of the lawyers' various cases (Los Angeles Times, 2026). Another article by the National Center for State Courts explains that in a Californian case named Mendones v. Cushman & Wakefield, the plaintiffs submitted fake evidence, specifically AI video and audio evidence which displays how AI’s impact has created harsh circumstances in which technology is extensively used for consequential purposes (National Center for State Courts, 2026). These detrimental effects could cause life altering consequences for the defendant especially in a place where justice should be given equally for all and evidence should be confidential.

Though the uses of AI might seem negative to a certain extent, its benefits are also visible by many people who support its use. It can be used to translate legal documents at a faster pace for those who speak a language other than English, schedule and track cases, and can answer specific questions about case info for communities. The creation of new AI-powered courthouse technology has also been launched to help courthouse staff and litigants. David Engstrom and his team from Stanford University worked with the Los Angeles Superior Court to develop two new AI devices for use in courtrooms in 2024 (Stanford Law School, 2025). One of these devices helps with catching legal errors in default judgments, which means a case in which the defendant does not show up, and the second helps with connecting self-representing litigants with important resources and information they might need to navigate their specific case. The growth of AI in courtrooms could improve the climate for self-represented litigants and court clerks in various ways, allowing a less stressful environment for those involved in the cases. 

Some other AI instruments used in the legal system are still debated among many, such as a system named Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions, or COMPAS. This system is primarily used to help the judge evaluate how likely a reoffending defendant is to commit a crime again. Many sources claim that COMPAS is accurate in the ways that it helps guide decisions for judges, but does not fully influence them and that more evidence may be needed for a decision to be made concrete. A big issue is the supposed use of race to make biased decisions in this AI-powered system. One study by the California State University in Bakersfield concluded that race was not a bias in the system, rather faults within the system and evaluation of the statistics which were analyzed (Equivant Supervision, 2024). 

Though these faults may be true, alternative sources say that race had a significant effect on the decisions made by the system in some particular cases. A study using COMPAS by ProPublica, a Pulitzer-Prize winning nonprofit, found that the system predicted Black defendants to have a 22% more likelihood of being misclassified as “higher risk” than white defendants after a two-year period of not committing any crime. White defendants were also classified as “low risk” 20% more when compared to black defendants as well (ProPublica, 2016). These apparent differences and our justice systems still using COMPAS has caused heated debates among those who see this as a violation of the 14 Amendment, which establishes equal protection to all, regardless of race, under the law. 

The debates over the use of AI have spread far and wide, from using systems such as COMPAS in determining likelihood of committing a crime and sentencing, to AI tools allowing easy access to resources for self-represented defendants. Though there are some pros to the uses of AI, our justice system should not be fully dependent on a human-like intelligence that could sway the decisions of judges and is brought as false evidence in court cases. The need to defend our court systems from AI taking over and being used in actual court cases is a necessity which should be taken a stricter stance on, especially since AI is only going to grow larger and could cause even more severe impacts on a defendant's life and mental health. 

Work Cited:

Ian .
Next

Mental Illness on Trial: How the System Fails Neurodivergent Defendants