Open Access

Artificial intelligence (AI)1, together with big data, is the driving force behind the ever-accelerating digital revolution. AI has what it takes to call into question our fundamental concepts and processes of political, social, economic etc. order (Macron, 2018; Zuboff, 2018), and the law will not be spared. Therefore, all societal actors (inter alia from politics, the economy, legal practice and academia) must take responsibility for the crucial twin tasks of determining the right, balanced relationship between AI and the law, and even to hybridise them. ...

Applying AI to criminal law and justice – a threatening vision of the future or a utopia of security and freedom?

Does Artificial Intelligence (AI) imply the end of criminal law and justice as we know it? This article submits that AI is a transformative technology that seemingly assumes and optimizes the rationalities of criminal law (the effective prevention of crime; the objective, neutral and coherent application of the law etc.), namely by replacing the counterfactual guarantees of the law with the factual guarantees of technology. As a consequence, AI must not be trivialized by criminal law theory. Likewise, it is not enough to subversively criticize the current weaknesses of AI (e.g. vis-à-vis the “bias in, bias out” problem). Rather, criminal law theory should draw on the highflying promises of AI to reflect upon the foundational premises of criminal law. For a criminal law that is mostly a governance tool in the administrative and/or welfare state, AI applications promise the culmination of the law’s very objectives (like the effective inhibition and prevention of crime, e.g. by means of predictive policing; or the political determination of fuzzy sentencing rationales in sentencing algorithms that ensure equal sentences for comparable crimes). For a criminal law, however, that protects liberal freedoms and rests on inter-personal trust, AI may well lead to the passing of the law’s very ideals (e.g. of the presumption of innocence, which can no longer be upheld once everyone, ordinary citizens and judges alike, is deemed a possible risk). The question about “AI as the end of criminal law?” thus eventually raises the two-pronged question “Which criminal law for which society?”. Indeed, what is the status of freedom (esp. in a surveillance society needed to power Big Data driven algorithms), trust (esp. under the zero trust paradigm that underlies many risk assessment algorithms) and future (esp. when algorithms make predictions based on past data) once AI enters into the administration of criminal justice? These are the questions, or so I respectfully submit, that criminal law theory needs to address today in order to come up with a criminal law that is both (for pragmatic reasons) open to technology as well as (for humane reasons) sensible. In all of this, we must take to heart Joachim Hruschka’s great legacy and remain intellectually honest.

This paper aims on taking a critical approach to the emerging debate on climate criminal justice, that is mostly about something labeled „climate criminal law“ („Klimastrafrecht“). The critique is directed at climate crimes intended to protect our habitable climate („Klimaschutzstrafrecht“) or to prevent climate change („Klimawandelpräventionsstrafrecht“) staged as transformational criminal law. “Fighting" climate change with climate crimes can lull us into deceptive certainties and by extension into perilous idleness; and it will do so if we think of climate protection essentially in terms of traditional criminal law. Climate crimes are based on the idea that we can counter climate change with the "sharpest sword" available to a polity (cf. the German and Continental European ultima-ratio principle) and that we can thereby also get hold of "the powerful". But these certainties rest on but normative (and at heart: liberal) doctrines, which are deceptive in having lost touch with the realities of the administration of criminal justice. They obscure that more effective measures are available to mitigate the climate crisis and that "the powerful" will likely be shielded with and by climate crimes. Therefore, the climate crimes approach to the climate crisis may just turn out to be (self-)appeasement. It obfuscates that more effective measures are likely necessary to avert impending crises. Our critique is therefore not "only" directed at the symbolic, but the dysfunctional and "dark side" of climate crimes.