Artificial Intelligence in Criminal Procedure: Instigating Imbalances in Traditional Tendencies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.62733/2026.1.117-149Keywords:
artificial intelligence, Artificial Intelligence Treaty, criminal procedure, European Union Artificial Intelligence Act, traditional tendencies of criminal procedureAbstract
The evolution of criminal procedural law has historically been characterised by a clash between two fundamental tendencies, present since the inception of the field. First, there is the pursuit of an effective criminal procedure, aimed at safeguarding society and individuals by identifying and punishing offenders. This goal is contrasted with the aim of ensuring a robust defence for every citizen subject to criminal proceedings, thereby preventing the wrongful conviction of the innocent and restricting any arbitrary or abusive exercise of state authority. Historically, the imbalance between these tendencies often stemmed from differing legal, philosophical, and political perspectives. In the 21st century, criminal procedural law faces a new challenge in balancing these traditionally conflicting aspirations due to the advent and integration of new technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI). This technological disruption, favouring the effectiveness of criminal prosecution, presents a dilemma for the conventionally and historically slower-evolving criminal procedural law, which struggles to respond at a pace in line with the rapid development and application of AI in criminal proceedings. The first segment of this research delves into the historical analysis of criminal procedural law, examining the interplay and shifting dominance of traditional tendencies through time. It aims to identify the challenges that influenced their interplay and, based on historical insights, presume future developments. The second part focuses on a systematic examination of individual AI systems, using specific examples of their implementation in criminal procedure. This analysis aims to determine whether these technologies genuinely represent a shift towards prioritising the efficiency of criminal proceedings over strong defence rights. Finally, the study explores current legislative responses to these emerging challenges, primarily the AI Act of the European Union and the draft AI Treaty of the Council of Europe. These legislations lay the groundwork for national responses to the utilisation of AI in criminal procedure, and their impact on the balance of traditional legal tendencies is critically assessed.
Downloads
References
Bayer, V. (1995) Kazneno procesno pravo – odabrana poglavlja, Knjiga II. Povijesni razvoj kaznenog procesnog prava. Zagreb: Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske.
Beccaria, C. (1990) O zločinima i kaznama. 2nd expanded and revised edn. Translated by Cvitanić, A. Biblioteka znanstvenih djela, vol. 57. Split: Književni krug.
Burić, Z., Engelhart, M., Novokmet, A., Roksandić, S. (2023) ‘Upotrebljivost rezultata masovnog nadzora komunikacije kao dokaza u hrvatskom kaznenom postupku – slučaj SKY ECC’, Hrvatski ljetopis za kaznene znanosti i praksu, 30(2), pp. 243–274; https://doi.org/10.54070/hljk.30.2.2.
Cancela-Outeda, C. (2024) ‘The EU’s AI Act: A framework for collaborative governance’, Internet of Things, 27, Article 101291; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iot.2024.101291.
Cihon, P., Maas, M.M., Kemp, L. (2020) ‘Fragmentation and the Future: Investigating Architectures for International AI Governance’, Global Policy, 11(5), pp. 545–566; https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12890.
Damaška, M. (1995) ‘Izazovi slobodnoj ocjeni dokaza’, Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu’, 2(1), pp. 41–55.
Damaška, M. (2001a) ‘Models of Criminal Procedure’, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 51(3–4), pp. 477–516.
Damaška, M. (2001b) Dokazno pravo u kazneno postupku: oris novih tendencija. Zagreb: Pravni fakultet u Zagrebu, Poslijediplomski studij iz kaznenopravnih znanosti.
Damaška, M. (2013) ‘Potraga za pravičnim postupkom u doba inkvizitorne procedure’, Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, 20(1), pp. 167–202.
Damaška, M. (2021) Dokaz Krivnje: Od rimsko-kanonskog do suvremenog prava. Zagreb: Školska knjiga.
Derenčinović, D., Dragičević Prtenjača, M. (2022) ‘Croatia: National Regulations in the Shadow of a Common Past’ in Váradi-Csema, E. (ed.) European Challenges and Central European Responses in the Criminal Science of the 21st Century. Miskolc – Budapest: Central European Academic Publishing, pp. 71–98; https://doi.org/10.54171/2022.evcs.cls_3.
Ebers, M. (2024) ‘Truly Risk-Based Regulation of Artificial Intelligence - How to Implement the EU’s AI Act’, SSRN Electronic Journal, pp. 3–30; https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4870387.
Europol (2021) ‘800 criminals arrested in biggest-ever law enforcement operation against encrypted communication’. [Online]. Available at: https://www.europol.europa.eu/media-press/newsroom/news/800-criminals-arrested-in-biggest-ever-law-enforcement-operation-against-encrypted-communication (Accessed: 28. October 2024).
Faraldo Cabana, P. (2023) ‘Technical and legal challenges of the use of automated facial recognition technologies for law enforcement and forensic purposes’ in Završnik, A., Simončič, K. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence, Social Harms and Human Rights: Critical Criminological Perspectives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 35–54; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19149-7_2.
Goel, S., Shroff, R., Skeem, J., Slobogin, C. (2021) ‘The accuracy, equity, and jurisprudence of criminal risk assessment’ in Vogl, R. (ed.) Research Handbook on Big Data Law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 9–28; https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788972826.00007.
Hamburg Data Protection Authority (2023) Prüfbericht zur Gesichtserkennungssoftware Videmo360. Hamburg: Hamburg Data Protection Authority. [Online]. Available at: https://www.datenschutz-hamburg.de (Accessed: 28. October 2024).
Harvard Law Review (2017) ‘State v. Loomis, Wisconsin Supreme Court Requires Warning Before Use of Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Sentencing’, Harvard Law Review, 130(5), pp. 1530–1537.
Iustinianus. (1963) Digesta. Krueger, P. and Mommsen, T. (eds.) 2. Nachdruck der Ausg. Berlin 1963. Hildesheim; Berlin: Weidmann.
Karsai, K. (2021) ‘Algorithmic Decisions within the Criminal Justice Ecosystem and their Problem Matrix’, Revue Internationale de Droit Pénal, 92(1), pp. 13–30.
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. and Simončič, K. (eds.) Artificial Intelligence, Social Harms and Human Rights, Critical Criminological Perspectives. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 3–34; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19149-7_1.
Krapac, D. (1994) ‘Kako odabrati tip kaznenog postupka za 2000. godinu?’, Zbornik Pravnog fakulteta u Zagrebu, 44(5–6), pp. 517–528.
Krapac, D. (1995) Engleski kazneni postupak. Zagreb: Pravni fakultet u Zagrebu.
Krapac, D. (2020) Kazneno procesno pravo. Prva knjiga: Institucije. 8th edn. Zagreb: Narodne novine.
Lala, F. (2023) ‘Data Collection via Web Scraping: Privacy and Facial Recognition after Clearview’, i-lex – Rivista di Scienze Giuridiche, Scienze Cognitive ed Intelligenza Artificiale, 16(2), pp. 34–45; https://doi.org/10.6092/issn.1825-1927/18872.
Levy, E. (1938) ‘Statute and Judge in Roman Criminal Law’, Washington Law Review, 13(4), pp. 291–304.
Lynch, N. (2024) ‘Facial Recognition Technology in Policing and Security–Case Studies in Regulation’, Laws, 13(3), pp. 1–14; https://doi.org/10.3390/laws13030035.
Ljubanović, V., Novokmet, A., Tomičić, Z. (2020) Kazneno procesno pravo: izabrana poglavlja. Osijek: Pravni fakultet Osijek.
Montag, L., Mcleod, R., De Mets, L., Gauld, M., Rodger, F., Pełka, M., (2021) The Rise and Rise of Biometric Mass Surveillance in the EU: A Legal Analysis of Biometric Mass Surveillance Practices in Germany, the Netherlands, and Poland. Brussels: European Digital Rights (EDRi). [Online]. Available at: https://edri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/EDRI_RISE_REPORT.pdf (Accessed: 30 October 2024).
Mousourakis, G. (2021) ‘Crime, Criminal Justice, and the Jury Courts in Late Republican Rome’, The Hiroshima Law Journal, 45(2), pp. 164–204; https://doi.org/10.15027/51609.
Niklas, J. (2021) ‘Human Rights–Based Approach to AI and Algorithms: Concerning Welfare Technologies’, in Barfield, W. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of the Law of Algorithms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 271–290.
Nikolinakos, N.Th. (2023) EU Policy and Legal Framework for Artificial Intelligence, Robotics and Related Technologies – The AI Act. Cham: Springer; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27953-9.
Novokmet, A., Tomičić, Z., Vidaković, I. (2023) ‘Facial recognition technology in EU criminal justice – human rights implications and challenges’, EU and Comparative Law Issues and Challenges Series (ECLIC), 7, pp. 525–570; https://doi.org/10.25234/eclic/27461.
Novokmet, A., Tomičić, Z., Vinković, Z. (2022) ‘Pretrial risk assessment instruments in the US criminal justice system–what lessons can be learned for the European Union?’, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 30(2), pp. 1–22;
https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaac006.
Novoselec, P., Bojanić, I. (2013) Opći dio kaznenog prava. 4th edn. Zagreb: Pravni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.
Oerlemans, J.-J., Royer, S. (2023) ‘The future of data-driven investigations in light of the Sky ECC operation’, New Journal of European Criminal Law, 14(4), pp. 434–458; https://doi.org/10.1177/20322844231212661.
Quattrocolo, S. (2020) Artificial Intelligence, Computational Modelling and Criminal Proceedings: A Framework for A European Legal Discussion. Cham: Springer; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52470-8.
Roodt, C. (2004) ‘A Historical Perspective on the Accusatory and Inquisitorial System’, Fundamina: A Journal of Legal History, 10, pp. 136–157.
Rossbach, N. (2023) ‘Innocent Until Predicted Guilty: How Premature Predictive Policing Can Lead to a Self-fulfilling Prophecy of Juvenile Delinquency’, Florida Law Review, 75(1), pp. 167–194.
Simović, M., Šikman, M. (2023) ‘Sadržaj šifrovane komunikacije (Ennetcom, EncroChat, Sky.ecc, ANOM, Exclu) kao dokaz u krivičnom postupku’, Pravo i Pravda, 21(1), pp. 227–254.
Smuha, N. A. (2020) ‘Beyond a Human Rights-based approach to AI Governance: Promise, Pitfalls, Plea’, Philosophy and Technology, 33(4), pp. 91–104; https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-020-00403-w.
van Kolfschooten, H., Shachar, C. (2023) ‘The Council of Europe’s AI Convention (2023–2024): Promises and Pitfalls for Health Protection’, Health Policy, 138, pp. 1–5; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104935.
Završnik, A. (2018) ‘Big data: What Is It and Why Does It Matter for Crime and Social Control?’, in Završnik, A. (ed.) Big Data, Crime and Social Control. London: Routledge, pp. 3–28; https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315395784-1.
Zulehner, B. (2024) ‘EU Artificial Intelligence Act: Regulating the Use of Facial Recognition Technologies in Publicly Accessible Spaces’, European Union Law Working Paper No. 91. Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum, pp. 1–37. [Online]. Available at: http://ttlf.stanford.edu. (Accessed: 28. October 2024).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
