Online Registration

ISO 9001:2015

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GLOBAL RESEARCH INNOVATIONS & TECHNOLOGY (IJGRIT) [ Vol. 4 | No. 2 | April - June, 2026 ]

Algorithmic Empathy and the Future of Legal Decision-Making: Toward Human-Centred Artificial Intelligence in Law

Rajeev Meena

The present research examines the theoretical, empirical, and normative considerations concerning the use of artificial intelligence in legal decision-making. In particular, the paper focuses on the notion of algorithmic empathy as a functional and ethical framework for humanizing artificial intelligence used within judicial and quasi-judicial settings. The arguments made here are based on the results of a novel multi-methods study consisting of a survey of 890 legal practitioners from seven countries, semi-structured interviews with 42 judges, public defenders, legal technology specialists, and AI ethicists, and a systematic review of 71 articles published in peer-reviewed journals and judicial policies issued between 2012 and 2024. The findings obtained confirm the empirical insufficiency and ethical incompleteness of the existing paradigm of efficient artificial intelligence within the legal domain. Specifically, they identify the prevalence of disparities in algorithmic accuracy depending on their use in sensitive areas, varying levels of public and professional trust depending on the seriousness of cases, and outcome disparities linked to the lack of interpretability and encoding of empathy features. An approach to reforming the current policies is introduced through three key principles, including mandated principles of explainability, empathic auditing of judges, and multistakeholder governance in the deployment of artificial intelligence within judicial processes. The implications of this study will inform legal theorists and artificial intelligence ethics scholars, as well as discussions on comparative judicial administration.

Meena, R. (2026). Algorithmic Empathy and the Future of Legal Decision-Making: Toward Human-Centred Artificial Intelligence in Law. International Journal of Global Research Innovations & Technology, 04(01), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.62823/IJGRIT/04.02.9006
  1. Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L. (2016). Machine bias. ProPublica. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing
  2. Barfield, W., & Pagallo, U. (Eds.). (2020). Research handbook on the law of artificial intelligence. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  3. Barocas, S., & Hardt, M. (2016). Fairness in machine learning. NeurIPS Tutorial. https://fairmlbook.org
  4. Barocas, S., & Moritz, H. (2016). Big data's disparate impact. California Law Review, 104(3), 671–732.
  5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  6. Chouldechova, A. (2017). Fair prediction with disparate impact: A study of bias in recidivism prediction instruments. Big Data, 5(2), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1089/big.2016.0047
  7. Citron, D. K. (2008). Technological due process. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1249–1313.
  8. Crawford, K., & Schultz, J. (2014). Big data and due process: Toward a framework to redress predictive privacy harms. Boston College Law Review, 55(1), 93–128.
  9. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  10. Doshi-Velez, F., & Kim, B. (2017). Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1702.08608
  11. Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4(1), eaao5580. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580
  12. Dworkin, R. (1986). Law's empire. Harvard University Press.
  13. European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Artificial Intelligence Act). Official Journal of the European Union.
  14. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2022). Bias in algorithms: Artificial intelligence and discrimination. Publications Office of the European Union.
  15. Katz, D. M., Bommarito, M. J., & Blackman, J. (2017). A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLOS ONE, 12(4), e0174698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698
  16. Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J., & Mullainathan, S. (2018). Human decisions and machine predictions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(1), 237–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032
  17. Nissenbaum, H. (2004). Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review, 79(1), 119–157.
  18. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown Publishers.
  19. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  20. Picard, R. W. (1997). Affective computing. MIT Press.
  21. Reiling, D. (2020). Courts and artificial intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.369
  22. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1(5), 206–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x
  23. Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v. robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSW Law Journal, 41(4), 1114–1133.
  24. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
  25. Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Russell, C. (2017). Counterfactual explanations without opening the black box: Automated decisions and the GDPR. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 31(2), 841–887.

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.62823/IJGRIT/04.02.9006

DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.62823/IJGRIT/04.02.9006

Download Full Paper:

Download