ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Public Perceptions of Judges' Use of AI Tools in Courtroom Decision-Making: An Examination of Legitimacy, Fairness, Trust, and Procedural Justice.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the level of responsibility in pedestrian crashes using machine learning algorithms.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Psychological features of dispute content and public acceptance of AI in legal adjudication: evidence for systematic variation beyond individual differences.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examines the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial decision-making, focusing on bail and sentencing contexts. We examined public perceptions of judges who use AI tools compared to those who rely solely on expertise. Using an experimental design, participants (N = 1800; stratified by race/ethnicity and gender) were presented with vignettes depicting judges using varying levels of AI assistance. Key outcomes included perceptions of judicial legitimacy, procedural justice, and trust in AI, with analyses stratified by racial groups (Black, Hispanic, White). The results revealed that judges relying on expertise were generally rated higher in legitimacy than those using AI; however, significant racial differences emerged. Black participants showed greater trust and perceived fairness in AI-augmented decisions compared to White and Hispanic participants. Open-ended responses further highlighted social psychological themes regarding the symbolic meaning of AI in judicial processes. These findings underscore the complexity of integrating AI in the judiciary, emphasizing the need for transparent and equitable implementation strategies to maintain public trust and fairness. Future research should explore underlying factors influencing these perceptions to inform policies that address racial disparities and enhance trust in AI-assisted legal decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.