Monika Simmler

The prevalence of automation and advent of intelligent machines have created new constellations in which the attribution of criminal responsibility is complicated. Automation results in complex settings of interaction, while the conduct of technical systems is becoming less determined, predictable, and transparent. There is an ongoing scholarly debate regarding how these developments shape moral and legal agency, as well as the best ways of allocating responsibility. Concerns have been expressed about the emergence of responsibility gaps, calling for ways to ensure accountability. This article explores whether these apprehensions can be empirically substantiated. A factorial survey study (N = 799) conducted in Switzerland was used to research attribution mechanisms in criminal cases involving various forms of human-machine interaction. The results revealed that the level of automation significantly affected the attribution of responsibility. In cases of high automation, attribution became considerably more complex and more actors, especially corporate entities, were called to account. A difference in automation level (i.e., the question of how much humans are still ‘in the loop’) had a stronger effect than did the aspect of technology being described as capable of learning. However, the involvement of intelligent technology seemed to have made the responsibility attribution more arbitrary. According to the respondents, there were no discernable responsibility gaps. However, in the present research, significant shifts among the agents called to account were observable. Yet, since these evasion mechanisms are hardly covered by today's law, there is an ongoing risk of a gap between the desire for punishment and actual legal constructs.

Die automatisierte Gesichtserkennung etabliert sich als Ermittlungsmassnahme im Strafverfahren, obwohl deren Rechtmässigkeit umstritten ist. Die Autorinnen haben dazu in einer Publikation vor knapp zwei Jahren Stellung bezogen und dargelegt, weshalb für den Einsatz automatisierter Gesichtserkennung keine ausreichenden Rechtsgrundlagen bestehen. In der Zwischenzeit hat sich der Diskurs über die Zulässigkeit der Nutzung von Gesichtserkennungstechnologie im Strafverfahren intensiviert. Dieser Beitrag knüpft an diese bisherige Debatte an und unterzieht die von verschiedener Seite zur Rechtfertigung des Einsatzes hervorgebrachten Rechtsgrundlagen einer Prüfung. Die Auseinandersetzung bestätigt, dass de lege lata keine ausreichenden gesetzlichen Grundlagen für den Einsatz automatisierter Gesichtserkennung im Strafverfahren bestehen. In Anlehnung an die KI-Verordnung der EU diskutiert der Beitrag deshalb, wie eine strafprozessrechtliche Regulierung der Gesichtserkennung de lege ferenda aussehen könnte. Für automatisierte biometrische Analyseverfahren sind Normen zu schaffen, welche die mit ihnen einhergehenden schweren Grundrechtseingriffe in ihrer Gesamtheit abbilden. Dazu gehört nicht nur die Beschaffung von Daten durch den Staat, sondern auch deren Analyse und Verwertung.

In the digital age, the use of advanced technology is becoming a new paradigm in police work, criminal justice, and the penal system. Algorithms promise to predict delinquent behaviour, identify potentially dangerous persons, and support crime investigation. Algorithm-based applications are often deployed in this context, laying the groundwork for a ‘smart criminal justice’. In this qualitative study based on 32 interviews with criminal justice and police officials, we explore the reasons why and extent to which such a smart criminal justice system has already been established in Switzerland, and the benefits perceived by users. Drawing upon this research, we address the spread, application, technical background, institutional implementation, and psychological aspects of the use of algorithms in the criminal justice system. We find that the Swiss criminal justice system is already significantly shaped by algorithms, a change motivated by political expectations and demands for efficiency. Until now, algorithms have only been used at a low level of automation and technical complexity and the levels of benefit perceived vary. This study also identifies the need for critical evaluation and research-based optimization of the implementation of advanced technology. Societal implications, as well as the legal foundations of the use of algorithms, are often insufficiently taken into account. By discussing the main challenges to and issues with algorithm use in this field, this work lays the foundation for further research and debate regarding how to guarantee that ‘smart’ criminal justice is actually carried out smartly.