# Transparency, Governance and Regulation of Algorithmic Tools Deployed in the Criminal Justice System: a UK Case Study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.15258 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.15258/

## Key facts

- Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- First posted on arXiv 30 May 2022.

## Built on by (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Harms from Increasingly Agentic Algorithmic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.10329/) (2023)
- [Visibility into AI Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.13138/) (2024)
- [Understanding AI Trustworthiness: A Scoping Review of AIES & FAccT Articles](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.21293/) (2025)
- [Artificial intelligence in government: Concepts, standards, and a unified framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.17218/) (2022)
- [Towards Regulatable AI Systems: Technical Gaps and Policy Opportunities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.12609/) (2023)
- [Formalising Anti-Discrimination Law in Automated Decision Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.00400/) (2024)
- [A short review of the main concerns in A.I. development and application within the public sector supported by NLP and TM](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.02042/) (2023)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present a survey of tools used in the criminal justice system in the UK in three categories: data infrastructure, data analysis, and risk prediction. Many tools are currently in deployment, offering potential benefits, including improved efficiency and consistency. However, there are also important concerns. Transparent information about these tools, their purpose, how they are used, and by whom is difficult to obtain. Even when information is available, it is often insufficient to enable a satisfactory evaluation. More work is needed to establish governance mechanisms to ensure that tools are deployed in a transparent, safe and ethical way. We call for more engagement with stakeholders and greater documentation of the intended goal of a tool, how it will achieve this goal compared to other options, and how it will be monitored in deployment. We highlight additional points to consider when evaluating the trustworthiness of deployed tools and make concrete proposals for policy.