When Algorithms Testify: Addressing the Explainability Gap of AI Evidence in Criminal Cases

The expansion of generative artificial intelligence evidence in the field of criminal justice has exposed the structural risks caused by the unexplainability of algorithms. Although existing studies have revealed multiple obstacles, they have not yet touched upon the fundamental crux of the unexplainability of the algorithm. The three predicaments derived from this, namely the disruption of argumentative logic, the loss of focus in the cross-examination process, and the depletion of judicial trust, essentially stem from the subtle tension between the certainty of machine conclusions and their mystery. The solution lies in establishing a transparent evidence generation mechanism, introducing an expert-assisted review system, and setting up traceability rules for training datasets. Through certain system, a dynamic balance is achieved between technological empowerment and procedural justice to prevent the algorithm conclusions from being improperly endowed with transcendent probative force.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Studies in Law and Justice
Published
2025-05-29
DOI
https://doi.org/10.56397/slj.2025.06.01
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Artificial Intelligence in Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
8.52
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When Algorithms Testify: Addressing the Explainability Gap of AI Evidence in Criminal Cases

Yuxin Chen
1 citations
Studies in Law and Justice
Artificial Intelligence in Law
8.52
article

When Algorithms Testify: Addressing the Explainability Gap of AI Evidence in Criminal Cases

Yuxin Chen
article en
1 citations

Abstract

The expansion of generative artificial intelligence evidence in the field of criminal justice has exposed the structural risks caused by the unexplainability of algorithms. Although existing studies have revealed multiple obstacles, they have not yet touched upon the fundamental crux of the unexplainability of the algorithm. The three predicaments derived from this, namely the disruption of argumentative logic, the loss of focus in the cross-examination process, and the depletion of judicial trust, essentially stem from the subtle tension between the certainty of machine conclusions and their mystery. The solution lies in establishing a transparent evidence generation mechanism, introducing an expert-assisted review system, and setting up traceability rules for training datasets. Through certain system, a dynamic balance is achieved between technological empowerment and procedural justice to prevent the algorithm conclusions from being improperly endowed with transcendent probative force.

Studies in Law and JusticeVol. 4(3)
Beijing Normal University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Artificial Intelligence in Law
8.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.