Scarpazza Cristina, Zangrossi Andrea
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy; IRCCS S.Camillo Hospital, Venezia, Italy.
Department of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy; Padova Neuroscience Center (PNC), University of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2025 May-Jun;100:102082. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2025.102082. Epub 2025 Feb 17.
The formulation of a scientific opinion on whether the individual who committed a crime should be held responsible for his/her actions or should be considered not responsible by reason of insanity is very difficult. Indeed, forensic psychopathological decision on insanity is highly prone to errors and is affected by human cognitive biases, resulting in low inter-rater reliability. In this context, artificial intelligence can be extremely useful to improve the inter-subjectivity of insanity evaluation. In this paper, we discuss the possible applications of artificial intelligence in this field as well as the challenges and pitfalls that hamper the effective implementation of AI in insanity evaluation. In particular, thus far, it is possible to apply only supervised algorithms without knowing which is the ground truth and which data should be used to train and test the algorithms. In addition, it is not known which percentage of accuracy of the algorithms is sufficient to support partial or total insanity, nor which are the boundaries between sanity and partial or total insanity. Finally, ethical aspects have not been sufficiently investigated. We conclude that these pitfalls should be resolved before AI can be safely and reliably applied in criminal trials.
就是否应对犯罪个体的行为追究其责任,或因精神错乱而认定其不负责任形成科学意见是非常困难的。事实上,关于精神错乱的法医精神病理学判定极易出错,且受人类认知偏差影响,导致评估者间信度较低。在此背景下,人工智能对于提高精神错乱评估的主体间性可能极为有用。在本文中,我们讨论了人工智能在该领域的可能应用,以及妨碍人工智能在精神错乱评估中有效实施的挑战与陷阱。特别是,到目前为止,仅能应用监督算法,却不知道何为基本事实,以及应使用哪些数据来训练和测试算法。此外,也不清楚算法的准确率达到多少才足以支持部分或完全精神错乱的判定,以及正常与部分或完全精神错乱之间的界限在哪里。最后,伦理方面尚未得到充分研究。我们得出结论,在人工智能能够安全可靠地应用于刑事审判之前,这些陷阱必须得到解决。