The algorithmic mind: Artificial Intelligence and the transformation of forensic psychology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15175/tx5x0930Palavras-chave:
AI & law, algorithm, behavioral sciences, forensic psychology, lawResumo
This paper explores the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and forensic psychology and how AI technologies are transforming the traditional space of forensic psychological testing, criminal profiling, risk assessment, and trial testimony. Drawing on current usages, integrating empirical research conducted, and critically evaluating the resulting ethical and legal implications, this paper reveals that, despite the fact that AI provides levels of analytical power and pattern-recognition skills never before offered, it also creates considerable problems in the form of bias, indirectness, and the fundamental nature of psychological knowledge. The study argues that the future of forensic psychology will not be one that includes the wholesale replacement of human expertise by AI, but it will be one that integrates it considerately so that professional judgment is not compromised but rather utilized to take advantage of technological evolutions. The research presents an in-depth evaluation of how AI is able to transform the field of forensic psychology, and it provides a future outlook on how to implement AI in criminal justice-related scenarios.
Downloads
Referências
BEN-PORATH, Yossef S.; TELLEGEN, Auke. MMPI-2-RF: manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.
BUCHANAN, Alec. Psychiatric aspects of justification, excuse and mitigation in Anglo-American criminal law. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2000.
COPPERSMITH, Glen et al. Natural language processing of social media as screening for suicide risk. Biomedical Informatics Insights, v. 10, p. 1-11, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178222618792860
DIETERICH, William; MENDOZA, Christina; BRENNAN, Tim. COMPAS risk scales: demonstrating accuracy, equity, and predictive parity. Northpointe Inc., 8 July 2016.
DRESSEL, Julia; FARID, Hany. The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, v. 4, n. 1, eaao5580, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580
HEILBRONNER, Robert L. et al. American academy of clinical neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, v. 23, n. 7, p. 1093-1129, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040903155063
HEILBRUN, Kirk. Principles of forensic mental health assessment. New York: Springer, 2001.
MÜNSTERBERG, Hugo. On the witness stand: essays on psychology and crime. [S. l.]: Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2007.
ROESCH, Ronald; ZAPF, Patricia A.; HART, Stephen D. Forensic psychology and law. [S.l.]: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
RUSSELL, Stuart; NORVIG, Peter. Artificial intelligence: a modern approach. 4th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 2020.
SELBST, Andrew D.; BAROCAS, Solon. The intuitive appeal of explainable machines. Fordham Law Review, v. 87, p. 1085-1139, 2018. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3126971
SKEEM, Jennifer L.; LOWENKAMP, Christopher T. Risk, race, and recidivism: predictive bias and disparate impact. Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal, v. 54, n. 4, p. 680-712, 2016. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/1745-9125.12123
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2026 Passagens: Revista Internacional de História Política e Cultura Jurídica

Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Solicita-se enviar, em anexo, um termo de transferência de direitos autorais, contendo assinatura do(a)s autor(a)s, conforme o modelo abaixo:


Este trabalho está licenciado com uma Licença licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional.