Smart criminal justice: Phenomena and normative requirements1
| Author | Monika Simmler,Giulia Canova,Kuno Schedler |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00208523211039740 |
| Published date | 01 June 2023 |
| Date | 01 June 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Smart criminal justice:
Phenomena and normative
requirements
1
Monika Simmler
Competence Center for Criminal Law and Criminology,
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Giulia Canova
Competence Center for Criminal Law and Criminology,
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Kuno Schedler
Institute for Systemic Management and Public Governance,
University of St. Gallen, Switzerland
Abstract
Advanced technology is not only transforming the public sector in general but is also
increasingly transmuting the criminal justice system. Smart applications are designed
to predict crimes, automate legal proceedings, and predict recidivism. We argue that
such use of intelligent technology to optimize police work, criminal justice, and law
enforcement is ultimately serving to establish a “smart criminal justice.”However, not
every use of technology is intelligent or “smart,”per se. Based on a literature analysis,
we explore the meaning of “smartness”from a descriptive and normative perspective, in
order to develop a catalog of decisive criteria. We identify the use of technology as a
basic prerequisite, and efficiency, effectiveness, and participation as normative criteria
for any smart initiative in the public sector. Considering the specifics of the criminal just-
ice system, these criteria can be expanded by claims related to legality, equality, and
transparency. In sum, this article presents and discusses guidelines for assessing the use-
fulness and legitimacy of technical innovations in the criminal justice system. The catalog
developed here will facilitate practitioners and policy-makers in determining when the
use of technology in criminal justice is actually smart, and more importantly, when it
is not.
Corresponding author:
Monika Simmler, University of St. Gallen—Law School, Bodanstrasse 3 St. Gallen 9000, Switzerland.
Email: monika.simmler@unisg.ch
Article
International
Review of
Administrative
Sciences
International Review of Administrative
Sciences
2023, Vol. 89(2) 415–432
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00208523211039740
journals.sagepub.com/home/ras
Points for practitioners
Advanced technology is increasingly being used in the public sector in general and the
criminal justice system in particular, bringing opportunities as well as substantial risk.
The use of technology has to adhere to normative principles to be considered as
“smart criminal justice.”This article presents a list of normative criteria that can be
used in practice to assess whether technology in criminal justice is used smartly.
Practitioners are encouraged to use this catalog as a guide for procurement, implemen-
tation, and evaluation processes.
Keywords
smart government, smart criminal justice, algorithms, ICT
Introduction
The increased use of advanced technology in the field of criminal justice is observable
worldwide. This is shown by discussions regarding predictive policing (Benbouzid,
2019; Van Brakel, 2021), recidivism risk assessment applications (Chohlas-Wood,
2020; Slobogin, 2021) and other algorithm-based systems that support criminal investi-
gations (Rezende, 2020; Završnik, 2020). The number of studies in criminological litera-
ture dealing with statistical and empirical issues related to applications based on advanced
technology is growing both rapidly and consistently (Kounadi et al., 2020; Taylor and
Ratcliffe, 2020). This development is derived from a more general trend pursuing innov-
ation in the public sector through the use of intelligent technology. Public sector initia-
tives based on innovations such as artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and sensor
systems are labeled as “smart government”(Anthopoulos, 2017). Smartness has
become a desirable characteristic of governments in general (Gil-Garcia et al., 2016)
and is beginning to affect the criminal justice system, establishing a new paradigm of
smart criminal justice. However, the use of intelligent technology in the public sector
in general and the criminal justice system in particular can be “smart,”but it does not
necessarily have to be. This argument is supported by a recent study from Switzerland,
which showed that in practice, policy-makers and users reflect little on the backgrounds
and effects of the algorithms being deployed (Simmler et al., 2020). The study revealed
that they often do not feel accountable for understanding the exact functioning of the
applications used. An independent and scientific evaluation is furthermore rarely
requested, reflecting an uncritical trust in the manufacturers of these tools. Supporting
this empirical research, the literature indicates that the use of algorithms in the criminal
justice system comes with substantial risk, particularly with regard to processing personal
data, the lack of algorithm transparency, discriminatory consequences, and reduced
accountability (Bennett Moses and Chan, 2016; Peeters and Schuilenburg, 2021;
Perego, 2020). In view of the potentially drastic decisions that are made with the help
of smart applications in criminal justice, it is urgently necessary to discuss the normative
416 International Review of Administrative Sciences 89(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial