Vetted by NeuralPress's Multi-Agent Verifier for strict factual validity and event relevance. Our compliance engine cross-checks and filters search results to ensure zero false correlations or misleading content.
Primary Sources
AI is showing up in court cases - but only a human jury can grapple ...
Eds: This story was supplied by The Conversation for AP customers. The Associated Press does not guarantee the content.(THE CONVERSATION) “Mercy,” a film released in January 2026, depicts a dystopian Los Angeles in the near future: a city riddled with violence, homelessness and civic disorder. California’s response is to set up the Mercy Capital Court, run entirely by an AI bot that goes by the name Judge Maddox. The judge can analyze evidence, determine whether the threshold for guilt has been met and execute the defendant – all in a matter of 90 minutes.Article continues below this adActor Chris Pratt plays a police officer named Chris Raven, who stands accused of murdering his wife. If he wants to leave the Mercy Court alive, he must do everything he can to lower his “guilt score” – the AI’s assessment of whether he’s the killer – from 97.5% to 92%.AI judges may still be in the realm of science fiction, but AI tools are entering the courtroom. Risk-assessment tools now help judges make decisions about bail, and lawyers and judges have used AI to research legal precedent. Some judges are even experimenting with it to formulate rulings, and simulations have used AI tools to stand in for human jurors.“Mercy” does not appear to take itself too seriously as a commentary on the legal system. But the idea that an AI bot can determine a verdict by assessing evidence distorts the meaning of legal judgment.Article continues below this adAs a scholar who studies juries, I believe AI obscures the importance of what human decision-makers bring to the task, and why they are essential for the legitimacy of the legal system. Since the Middle Ages, jurors have had to grapple with the weight of determining guilt – including having serious reservations about the quality of the evidence, the legitimacy of punishment and the impossibility of complete knowledge about the case. Features, not bugs Weighing the evidence in a criminal case cannot easily be measured on a scoreboard. Interpreting what it means is often difficult – not just intellectually but emotionally. The gravity of possibly inflicting pain on an innocent person is an essential part of judgment.Jurors are linked in a web of relationships to the defendant, the victim and others affected by the crime. They can’t help but consider the consequences of the crime and of the verdict, and they imagine what it would feel like to be in the defendant’s shoes. How could a juror not feel doubt about their decision with all ...
AI is showing up in court cases - but only a human jury can grapple ...
“Mercy,” a film released in January 2026, depicts a dystopian Los Angeles in the near future: a city riddled with violence, homelessness and civic disorder. California’s response is to set up the Mercy Capital Court, run entirely by an AI bot that goes by the name Judge Maddox. The judge can analyze evidence, determine whether the threshold for guilt has been met and execute the defendant – all in a matter of 90 minutes. Actor Chris Pratt plays a police officer named Chris Raven, who stands accused of murdering his wife. If he wants to leave the Mercy Court alive, he must do everything he can to lower his “guilt score” – the AI’s assessment of whether he’s the killer – from 97.5% to 92%. AI judges may still be in the realm of science fiction, but AI tools are entering the courtroom. Risk-assessment tools now help judges make decisions about bail, and lawyers and judges have used AI to research legal precedent. Some judges are even experimenting with it to formulate rulings, and simulations have used AI tools to stand in for human jurors. “Mercy” does not appear to take itself too seriously as a commentary on the legal system. But the idea that an AI bot can determine a verdict by assessing evidence distorts the meaning of legal judgment. As a scholar who studies juries, I believe AI obscures the importance of what human decision-makers bring to the task, and why they are essential for the legitimacy of the legal system. Since the Middle Ages, jurors have had to grapple with the weight of determining guilt – including having serious reservations about the quality of the evidence, the legitimacy of punishment and the impossibility of complete knowledge about the case. Features, not bugs Weighing the evidence in a criminal case cannot easily be measured on a scoreboard. Interpreting what it means is often difficult – not just intellectually but emotionally. The gravity of possibly inflicting pain on an innocent person is an essential part of judgment. Jurors are linked in a web of relationships to the defendant, the victim and others affected by the crime. They can’t help but consider the consequences of the crime and of the verdict, and they imagine what it would feel like to be in the defendant’s shoes. How could a juror not feel doubt about their decision with all these factors weighing on them? The judge’s bench and jury box in a courtroom at the Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S. Courthouse in Cleveland. Carol M. Highsmith Archive, Library of Congress via...
AI isn't ready to replace your fund manager
Bloomberg spent millions to train a private AI that performed worse than ChatGPT 4 on finance tasks. Is it worth using open source LLMs if they lack the ...
'Like 10 Manhattan Projects going off all at once': AI is rewiring the ...
'Like 10 Manhattan Projects going off all at once': AI is rewiring the entire global economy, says this BlackRock exec · Other industries may be in store for the ...
