Skip main navigation

PP v. Denis P. Modili

This article summarizes the case PP v. Denis P. Modili and the related discussions.
PP v. Denis P. Modili


In Malaysia, Denis P. Modili was charged for possessing a small amount of methamphetamine. After pleading guilty, the court utilized the Artificial Intelligence Sentencing Guidelines (AISG) system for sentencing guidance. Though the AISG suggested a ten-month imprisonment, the judge settled on twelve months, aiming for deterrence. The AISG system, using past sentencing data, recommends sentences based on factors like drug quantity, the age of the accused, and employment history. In Modili’s sentencing, the system recommended a ten-month term based on a 54.31% probability.


Due Process: The defense’s argument was that the AI system could possibly breach constitutional rights, thus questioning the system’s adherence to due process principles.

Discretion: The AI system’s presence could subtly influence the judge’s discretion, as seen when the judge gave a twelve-month sentence instead of the AISG-recommended ten months.

Independence: Judges might feel a need to justify decisions that deviate from AI recommendations, which can unintentionally affect their independent judgment.

Duty to give reasons: With the AISG system’s involvement, there’s potential ambiguity in the judge’s duty to provide clear reasoning behind the decision, given that the AI’s logic might not always be transparent.

© Ching-Fu Lin and NTHU, proofread by ChatGPT
This article is from the free online

AI Ethics, Law, and Policy

Created by
FutureLearn - Learning For Life

Reach your personal and professional goals

Unlock access to hundreds of expert online courses and degrees from top universities and educators to gain accredited qualifications and professional CV-building certificates.

Join over 18 million learners to launch, switch or build upon your career, all at your own pace, across a wide range of topic areas.

Start Learning now