AI adjudication in courts reflects systemic erosion of due process and moral accountability under neoliberal austerity and techno-utopianism
Original framing: “AI is showing up in court cases, but only a human jury can grapple with the moral weight of assessing guilt” — Phys.org
Future modelling suggests that AI adjudication could lead to a two-tiered justice system: one for the wealthy, who can afford human juries and appeals, and another for the marginalized, subject to algorithmic rulings. This could exacerbate existing inequalities, particularly in contexts like California where privatized prisons and courts are already a reality. The film’s scenario also raises questions about the long-term societal effects of normalizing state-sanctioned killing by algorithm.
The film *Mercy* and the Phys.org article it inspired reflect a broader cultural and political shift toward technocratic solutions for social problems, particularly in the realm of justice.
This shift is not an accident but the result of decades of neoliberal austerity that defunded public institutions, coupled with the rise of Silicon Valley’s 'disruptive' ethos, which frames inequality as a technical problem solvable by algorithms. The narrative obscures the historical continuity of carceral expansion, from eugenics to predictive policing, and the role of corporate actors in shaping legal systems to serve profit rather than justice. Indigenous and restorative justice traditions offer a radical alternative, emphasizing communal repair and accountability over punitive measures, but these are systematically excluded from mainstream discourse. The trickster’s lens reveals the absurdity of claiming AI can 'grapple with moral weight' while being designed within a system that profits from incarceration, highlighting the need for democratic control over legal technology and a return to human-centered justice.