Judges versus artificial intelligence in juror decision-making in criminal trials : Evidence from two pre-registered experiments

Watamura, Eiichiro; Liu, Yichen; Ioku, Tomohiro

PLoS ONE, 2025, 20(1)

Number of Access:234（2025-07-24 05:39 Counts）

Identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/11094/101067

Link to primary information 

File Format Terms of use Size Views Date.Available Description information
PLoSONE_20_1 January pdf None 648 KB 26 2025.04.22  
Creative Commons : Attribution

Item Information

Output File Export EndNote Basic Export Mendeley

Title
Judges versus artificial intelligence in juror decision-making in criminal trials : Evidence from two pre-registered experiments
Creator
NRID
1000050732989 1000050732989
researchmap permalink
watamuraeiichiro watamuraeiichiro
Scopus Author ID
55246852800 55246852800
CreatorName
Watamura, Eiichiro
CreatorName
Liu, Yichen
CreatorName
Ioku, Tomohiro
Description
Watamura E., Liu Y., Ioku T.. Judges versus artificial intelligence in juror decision-making in criminal trials: Evidence from two pre-registered experiments. PLoS ONE 20, e0318486 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318486.
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is anticipated to play a significant role in criminal trials involving citizen jurors. Prior studies have suggested that AI is not widely preferred in ethical decision-making contexts, but little research has compared jurors’ reliance on judgments by human judges versus AI in such settings. Objectives This study examined whether jurors are more likely to defer to judgments by human judges or AI, especially in cases involving mitigating circumstances in which human-like reasoning may be valued. Methods Two pre-registered online experiments were conducted with Japanese participants (Experiment 1 : N = 1,735, Mage = 48.4; Experiment 2 : N = 1,731, Mage = 48.5). Participants reviewed two murder trial vignettes and made sentencing decisions (1 = suspended sentence; 8 = prison sentence) under two conditions: trials with and without mitigating circumstances. Results and conclusion Across both experiments, participants showed no preference for deferring to human judges’ or AI judgments when making sentencing decisions. While suspended sentences were more common in cases with mitigating circumstances, this tendency was unrelated to the judgment source. These findings suggest that jurors do not inherently avoid algorithmic judgments and may consider AI opinions on par with those of human judges in certain contexts. However, whether this leads to improved decision-making quality remains an open question, as objectivity (a strength of AI) and emotional considerations (a safeguard for fairness) may interact in complex ways during juror deliberations. Future research should further explore how these factors influence juror attitudes and decisions in diverse trial scenarios, taking into account potential biases in existing literature.
Publisher
Public Library of Science
Source Title
PLoS ONE
Volume (Issue)
20(1)
Date of Issued
2025-01-30
Language
English
Handle URL
https://hdl.handle.net/11094/101067
eISSN
19326203
Relation.isIdenticalTo
DOI (Publisher Version)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0318486
Access Rights
open access
CopyRight
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
oaire:version
Version of Record
Category
学術雑誌論文 Journal Article