PP v. Denis P. Modili

PP v. Denis P. Modili

Brief

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.

Discussions

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.