隨著人工智慧與演算法應用於刑事量刑決策的趨勢興起，其影響與潛在風險日益受到關注，本文旨在透過刑罰正當性框架探討量刑系統對司法程序產生的影響，包括法官獨立性、規範正當性與實質正當性三個面向，並尋求在科技運用與司法核心價值之間取得平衡的可能途徑。本文透過文獻回顧、案例評析與檢視相關理論，並比較美國、馬來西亞與中國等已實施量刑系統的實務經驗，以全面理解量刑系統的運作模式及其引發的爭議。經分析，量刑系統雖可提升量刑結果的一致性與司法決策效率，但也可能壓縮法官裁量空間，影響法官獨立性。在規範正當性方面，量刑系統可能貶損刑罰目的，即法官過於依賴量刑系統而忽略「為何處罰」的核心思考；實質正當性方面，量刑系統的透明度與量刑結果的一致性密切關聯著社會大眾對司法的信任，充足的資訊公開和論述有助於增進信任，反之則可能引發疑慮。此外，本文評估了臺灣現行量刑系統的運作情況，發現其中存在演算法偏見風險與透明度不足等問題，顯示當前制度尚有檢討改進的空間。基於上述分析，本文提出量刑系統改革的政策建議，包括修正法規以明確量刑系統的使用界限、強化法官AI素養與風險意識的教育訓練、提高量刑程序的透明度，以及建立獨立的技術監管與審查機制，以確保科技輔助下的量刑仍符符合刑罰正當性之精神。

With the growing trend of applying artificial intelligence (AI) and algorithms in criminal sentencing decisions, there is increasing concern about their impacts and potential risks. This thesis aims to explore how sentencing systems affect judges’ independence, as well as the normative and substantive legitimacy of criminal punishment, and seeks possible ways to strike a balance between the use of technology and core judicial values. The research employs literature review, case analysis, and examination of relevant theories, and compares practical experiences in the United States, Malaysia, and China where sentencing systems have been implemented. This comprehensive approach provides an understanding of how such sentencing systems operate and the controversies they entail. The analysis finds that although sentencing systems can improve the consistency of sentencing outcomes and the efficiency of judicial decision-making, they may also narrow the scope of judicial independence. In terms of normative legitimacy, the use of sentencing systems may undermine the purposes of punishment — that is, judges who rely too heavily on these systems might neglect the fundamental question of “why punish.” In terms of substantive legitimacy, the transparency of the system and the consistency of sentencing outcomes are closely linked to public trust in the judiciary. Sufficient information disclosure and reasoning help foster trust, whereas opacity can raise doubts. In addition, this thesis evaluates the current usage of sentencing systems in Taiwan and finds issues such as algorithmic bias and lack of transparency, indicating room for improvement in the existing framework. Based on the above analysis, the thesis proposes policy recommendations for reforming sentencing systems. These include amending laws to clearly define the boundaries for using sentencing assistance tools, strengthening education and training to improve judges’ AI literacy and risk awareness, increasing the transparency of sentencing procedures, and establishing independent technical oversight and review mechanisms. These measures are intended to ensure that the incorporation of technology in sentencing remains consistent with the requirements of legitimacy of criminal punishment.

中文文獻
期刊論文
朱朝亮（2020），<從量刑法則之應然，談我國現行量刑實務問題>，《法官協會雜誌》，22卷，頁41-85。
呂寧莉（2020），<臺灣高等法院105年度交上易字第117號刑事判決評析－兼論使用「量刑資訊系統」之相關問題>，《台灣法學雜誌》，393期，頁53-61。
李茂生（2013），<量刑因子的調查與辯論>，《法官協會雜誌》，15卷，頁100-13。
李惠宗（1995），〈從基本全功能論司法獨立與訴訟平等權〉，《東海法學研究》，9期，頁121-49。
李榮耕（2021），<刑事程序中人工智慧於風險評估上的應用>，《政大法學評論》，168期，頁117-86。
周漾沂（2016），<刑罰的自我目的性─重新證立絕對刑罰理論>，《政大法學評論》，147期，頁279-346。
林勤富（2022），〈智慧法院之發展與界限（上）—演算法、科技治理與司法韌性〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，323期，頁72-98。
林勤富（2022），<智慧法院之發展與界限（下）—演算法、科技治理與司法韌性>，月旦法學雜誌，324期，頁109-31。
林鈺雄（1999），<論刑事訴訟之目的>，《政大法學評論》，頁403-20。
林輝煌（2015），<死亡的正義─國際人權法宣告死刑之正當法律程序（中）>，《法令月刊》，66卷1期，頁1-35。
侯詠琪（2024），<臺灣修復式司法制度框架之改革―汲取自英格蘭、威爾斯及北愛爾蘭經驗>，《檢察新論》，33期，頁156-73。
城下裕二（著）林儹紘（譯）（2023），<日本裁判員裁判的量刑判斷之現況與課題>，《月旦法學雜誌》，337期，頁164-70。
帥奕男（2020），<人工智能輔助司法裁判的現實可能與必要限度>，《山東大學學報（哲學社會科學版）》，4期，頁101-10。
柯耀程（2010），<定執行刑界限及已執行刑扣抵—評最高法院九十八年台非字第三三八號刑事判決>，《裁判時報》，3期，頁102-7。
范耕維（2022），<建構量刑階段中罪刑相當原則的第一哩路—自應報觀點形塑刑罰量定之理論嘗試>，《中研院法學期刊》，30期，頁79-170。
郭豫珍（2011），<刑罰目的觀對法官量刑影響力的質化研究>，《法學叢刊》，224期，頁65-88。
程龍（2022），<人工智能輔助量刑的問題與出路>，《西北大學學報（哲學社會科學版）》，6期，頁163-74。
黃國昌（2009），<法學實證研究方法初探>，《月旦法學雜誌》，175期，頁142-53。
楊舒涵（2014），<修復式司法作為量刑基準之探討>，《司法新聲》，110期，頁75-86。
廖晉賦（2019），<量刑責任之初探>，《法官協會雜誌》，20卷，頁179-208。
廖旋（2019），<智慧法院：人工智能介入司法的憂患與展望>，《湖南學院學報》，2期，頁數不明，另載於：http://www.chinalawlib.org.cn/LunwenShow.aspx?FID=20081224141110233122&CID=20160518155022540388&AID=20200509112335350847
盧于聖（2022），<重構刑法第57條的量刑架構―從量刑目的與行為人圖像出發>，《刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集》，25期，頁387-422。
蕭宏宜（2012），<量刑原則與罪罰相當>，《台灣法學雜誌》，214期，頁118-35。
謝煜偉（2014），<重新檢視死刑的應報意義>，《中研院法學期刊》，15期，頁139-206。
謝煜偉（2020），<從量刑目的論形構量刑框架及量刑理由之判決架構>，《法官協會雜誌》，22卷，頁86-104。
蘇凱平（2020），<以司法院量刑資訊作為量刑之內部界限-評最高法院108年度台上字第3728號刑事判決>，《裁判時報》，28期，頁85-90。

書籍
王皇玉（2019），《刑法總則》，新學林。
黃榮堅（2012），《基礎刑法學（上）》，元照。

書之篇章
王紀軒（2023），<量刑應注意事項的規範檢討－卡繆《異鄉人》的反思>，《法學思索與社會實踐－華岡法律人的志業：林信和教授七秩榮慶暨榮退論文集（下冊）》，頁247，新學林。
王祿生（等著）（2018），〈江蘇法院“同案不同判預警平台”調研報告〉，李林（等編），《中國法院信息化發展報告No.2》，頁351，社會科學文獻。
田禾（2023），〈中國法院“大數據”第三方評估報告（2018~2022）〉，陳國平（等著），《中國法院信息化發展報告No.7》，頁83，社會科學文獻。
吳志強（2020），<量刑因子之生活狀況及品行的再探>，王皇玉（編），《李茂生教授六秩晉五祝壽論文集：主體、理性、與人權的彼岸》，頁229，新學林。
林勤富（2024），〈人工智慧自動決策系統的透明度難題〉，李建良（編），《人工智慧的法制基礎：破壞式創新的建構式法制》，頁129，元照。
陳國平（等著）（2021），〈中國法院“智慧執行”第三方評估報告（2021）〉，陳國平（等編），《中國法院信息化發展報告No.6》，頁57，社會科學文獻。
陳國平（等著）（2023），〈2022年中國法院信息化發展與2023年展望〉，陳國平（等編），《中國法院信息化發展報告No.7》，頁1，社會科學文獻。
楊敏（2018），〈上海刑事案件智能輔助辦案系統〉，李林（等編），《中國法院信息化發展報告No.2》，頁186，社會科學文獻。

網路資源
小包公．AI法律，<公司簡介>，https://www.xiaobaogong.com/fanwen/about.html（最後瀏覽日：07/25/2024）。
中國政法大學國家法律援助研究院，<小包公>，http://legalaid.cupl.edu.cn/flAI/xbg.htm（最後瀏覽日：07/25/2024）。
王道維（等著），<Sentencing Information System Project 量刑資訊系統之AI標註與優化發展計畫>，Artificial Intelligence for Fundamental Research Group，http://www.phys.nthu.edu.tw/~aicmt/Sentencing%20Information%20System%20Project.html （最後瀏覽日：07/28/2024）。
法務部（2019），<法務部推動「修復式司法方案」實施計畫：緣由>，https://www.moj.gov.tw/2204/2205/2323/2354/2388/2389/2390/8941/post，（最後瀏覽日：2024年8月24日）。
田建設、羅偉，<中外司法網站的比較分析>，《法律信息研究網》，http://www.chinalawlib.org.cn/LunwenShow.aspx?CID=20081224141421920158&AID=20130909112324980066&FID=20081224141208467131（最後瀏覽日：07/24/2024）。
司法院，<大事紀要>，https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/lp-1723-1.html （最後瀏覽日：07/27/2024）。
張守增（08/03/2007），<最高法出台《决定》全面加强法院信息化工作>，《東方律師》，http://www.lawyers.org.cn/info/573af0e87e094d07b6830d9d48e5b10c （最後瀏覽日：07/24/2024）。
白玫瑰社會關懷協會，<2010/9/25白玫瑰運動>，https://www.whiterose.org.tw/6，（最後瀏覽日：2024年10月23日）。
司法院刑事廳（12/21/2018），<司法院「量刑趨勢建議系統」開放民眾使用新聞稿>，https://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/GNNWS/NNWSS002.asp?id=397622。
王道維（10/27/2022），<司法院AI輔助量刑資訊系統上線>，https://blog.udn.com/mobile/dawweiwang/177343941。
司法院（02/06/2023），<因應國民法官新制，司法院啟用AI量刑資訊系統—具備二種模式、擁有四大優點>，https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-1887-806741-d6471-1.html。
小包公．AI法律（06/16/2023），<小包公賦能科技強檢建設，「智能量刑預測系統」在上海市人民檢察院落地應用！>，https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/xRVrloxV6Ddgp3zv4Zle_Q。
七法股份有限公司，<Lawsnote>，https://www.lawsnote.com（最後瀏覽日：11/01/2024）。

其他
中華人民共和國人民最高法院（2017），《海南法院大數據人工智慧助力司法改革量刑規範化智能輔助辦案系統效果明顯》，2017年7月27日，https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/54302.html。
中華人民共和國人民最高法院（2018），《現代科技與法院工作深度融合——全國人大代表熱議智慧法院建設》，2018年3月13日，https://www.court.gov.cn/zixun/xiangqing/84982.html。
中華人民共和國國務院辦公廳，《“十三五”國家信息規劃的通知》，2016年12月15日，http://big5.www.gov.cn/gate/big5/www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2017/content_5160221.htm。
中華人民共和國國務院辦公廳，《國家信息化發展戰略綱要》，2016年7月27日，https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-07/27/content_5095336.htm。
中華人民共和國最高人民法院，《人民法院信息化建設五年發展規劃（2013-2017）》，2013年12月，http://www.pkulaw.cn/fulltext_form.aspx?Gid=242335。
中華人民共和國最高人民法院，《最高人民法院關於加快建設智慧法院的意見》，2017年4月12日，http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/5dec527431cdc22b72163b49fc0284.html。
文家倩（2023），<從量刑工具探討國民法官的量刑評議>，《司法周刊》，2156期（司法文選別冊），頁1-41。
司法院（03/14/2024），<刑事量刑專區>，https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/cp-83-57186-1ef46-1.html。
司法院（2005），<司法院第235次主管會報重要指示事項>，《司法周刊》，1225期。
司法院（2011），<司法院研議建制量刑資訊系統減少歧異>，《司法周刊》，1539期。
司法院（2016），<類似判決刑度系統新增人口販運及證券交易法犯罪>，《司法周刊》，1784期。
司法院（2018），<司法院召開第1次量刑準則研議諮詢會議廣徵各界意見>，《司法周刊》，1895期。
司法院（2018），<司法院召開量刑參考要點草案諮詢會議>，《司法周刊》，1908期。
司法院（2018），<量刑趨勢建議系統啟用開放各界查詢>，《司法周刊》，1933期。
司法院（2019），<司法院與律師座談許院長：期共同打造保障人民權益的司法>，《司法周刊》，1981期。
司法院（2020），《108年度司法業務年報》。
司法院（2023），《111年度司法業務年報》。
司法院（2023），《司法院數位政策2.0》。
司法院，<司法院裁判書系統>，https://judgment.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/default.aspx（最後瀏覽日：11/01/2024）。
司法院，<司法院類似判決刑度資訊檢索系統>，https://sen.judicial.gov.tw/pub_penrsbin/penrs_chkid_Project3.cgi（最後瀏覽日：07/27/2024）。
司法院，<事實型量刑資訊系統>，https://intellisen.judicial.gov.tw （最後瀏覽日：12/6/2024）
司法院，<量刑資訊服務平台>，https://sen.judicial.gov.tw （最後瀏覽日：07/27/2024）。
司法院，<量刑趨勢建議系統>，https://sen.judicial.gov.tw/pub_platform/sugg/index.html，（最後瀏覽日：2024年6月17日）。
司法院國民參與審判制度成效評估委員會，《中華民國112年度國民參與審判制度成效評估報告》，2024年10月23日，https://www.judicial.gov.tw/tw/dl-221196-c9aa88175ee94f5583aa5e6e9c54930c.html。
胡宜如（2015），<司法院焦點團體建議量刑參考基準介紹>，《司法周刊》，1766期，2-3頁。

英文文獻
期刊論文
Aikenhead, M., The Uses and Abuses of Neural Networks in Law, 12 SANTA CLARA HIGH TECH. L.J. 31 (1996).
Bambauer, J., & Zarsky, T., The Algorithm Game, 91 NORTE DAME L. REV. 1 (2018).
Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D., Big Data’s Disparate Impact, 104 CAL. L. REV. 671 (2016).
Buchanan, B. G. & Headrick, T. E., Some Speculation About Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning, 23 STAN. L. REV. 40 (1970).
Burbank, S. B., What Do We Mean by “Judicial Independence,” 64 OHIO ST. L.J. 322 (2003).
Burrell, J., How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms, 3(1) BIG DATA & SOC. 1 (2016).
Campbell, R. W., Artificial Intelligence in the Courtroom: The Delivery of Justice in the Age of Machine Learning, 18 COLO. TECH L.J. 1, 17 (2023).
Carlson, A. M., The Need for Transparency in the Age of Predictive Sentencing Algorithms, 103 IOWA L. REV. 303 (2017).
Casper, J. D., Tom Tyler and Bonnie Fisher, Procedural Justice in Felony Cases, 22(3) L. & SOC. REV. 483 (1988).
Chander, A., The Racist Algorithm?, 115(6) MICH. L. REV. 1023 (2017).
Chen, D., Halberstam, Y., & Yu, A. C. L., Perceived Masculinity Predicts U.S. Supreme Court Outcomes, 11(10) PLOS ONE 1 (2016).
Contini, F. Artificial Intelligence and the Transformation of Humans, Law and Technology Interactions in Judicial Proceedings, 2(1) L. TECH. & HUMANS 4 (2020).
Daud, M., Artificial Intelligence in the Malaysian Legal System: Issues, Challenges and Way Forward, 39(1) J. MALAY. B. 1 (2022).
Deeks, A., The Judicial Demand for Explainable Artificial Intelligence, 119 COLUM. L. REV. 1829 (2019).
Drobak, J. N., & North, D. C., Understanding Judicial Decision-Making: The Important of Constraints on Non-Rational Deliberations, 26(1) WASH. U. J.L. & POL’Y 131 (2008).
Englich, B., Mussweiler T., & Strack, F., Playing Dice with Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making, 32(2) PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCHo. 188 (2006).
Ferejohn, J. A., & Krame, D. L., Independent Judges, Dependent Judiciary: Explaining Judicial Independence, 77 N.Y.U. L. REV. 962 (2002).
Frase, R. S., Forty Years of American Sentencing Guidelines: What Have We Learned?, 48 CRIME & JUST. 79 (2019).
Frederick, S., Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, 19 J. ECON. PERSP. 25 (2005).
Freeman, K., Algorithmic Injustice: How the Wisconsin Supreme Court Failed to Protect Due Process Rights in State v. Loomis, 18(5) N.C. J.L. & TECH. 75 (2016).
Gee, H., “Bang!”: ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection Technology, Predictive Policing, and Measuring Terry’s Reach, 55 UNIV. MICH. J.L. REFORM. 767 (2022).
Gleicher, M., A Framework for Considering Comprehensibility in Modeling, 4 BIG DATA 75 (2016).
Goodman-Delahunty, J., Unconscious Influences in Sentencing Decisions: A Research Review of psychological Sources of Disparity, 42(1) AUSTRALIAN J. FORENSIC SCI. 19 (2010).
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J. J., & Wistrich A. J., Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases, 93(1) CORNELL L. REV. 1 (2007).
Haidt, J., The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment, 108 PSYCHOL REV. 814 (2001).
Hayes, D., Proximity, Pain, and State Punishment, 20(2) PUNISHMENT & SOC’Y. 235 (2018).
Hellawell, R., A Computer Program for Legal Planning and Analysis: Taxation of Stock Redemptions, 80 COLUM. L. REV. 1363 (1980).
Ho, Y.-J., Wael Jabr and Yifan Zhang, AI Enforcement: Examining the Impact of AI on Judicial Fairness and Public Safety (2024), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4533047.
Hunter, D., Bagaric, M., & Stobbs, N., A Framework for the Efficient and Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Criminal Justice System, 47(4) FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 749 (2020).
Jamieson, F., Judicial Independence: The Master Narrative in Sentencing Practice, 21(2) CRIMINOLOGY & CRIM. JUST. 133 (2021).
Jasanoff, S., Transparency in Public Science: Purposes, Reasons, Limits, 69 L. CONTEMP. PROBL. 21 (2006).
Jasni, M. A., Ah, S. H. A. B., & Nasir, N. C. M., How I Managed to Integrate: An Analysis of the Protective Factors in Determining Good Life Events and Turning Points of Three Former Prisoners in Malaysia, 40(2) KAJIAN MALAYSIA 113 (2022).
Joh, E. E., The New Surveillance Discretion: Automated Suspicion, Big Data, and Policing, 10 HARV L. & POL’Y REV. 15 (2016).
Kahan, D. H., Hoffman, D., Evans, D., Devins, N., & Lucci, E., Ideology or Situation Sense? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgement, 164(2) U. PA. L. REV. 349 (2016).
Kaheman, D., A Perspective on Judgment and Choice, 58(9) AM. PSYCHOL. 697 (2003).
Karlan, P. S., Judicial Independence,95 GEO. L.J. 1041 (2007).
Kennedy, J., Beyond Judicial Solitude: Listening in the Politics of Criminal Sentencing, 43(3) CRIM. JUST. ETHICS 225 (2024).
Khong, D. W. K., & Ho, C. C., Case Commentary: Artificial Intelligence in Malaysian Courts: PP. v. Denis P. Modili, 2(2) ASIAN J.L. & POL’Y. 127 (2022).
Kroll, J. A., Huey, J., Barocas, S., Felten, E. W., Reidenberg, J. R., Robinson, D. G., & Yu, H., Accountable Algorithms, 165 U. PA. L. REV. 633 (2017).
Lehr, D., & Ohm, P., Playing with the Data: What Legal Scholars Should Learn About Machine Learning, 51 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 653 (2017).
Li, X., Xiong, H., Li, X., Wu, X., Zhang, X., Liu, J., Bian, J., & Dou, D., Interpretable Deep Learning: Interpretation, Interpretability, Trustworthiness, and Beyond, 64 KNOWLEDGE & INFORMATION SYS. 3197 (2022).
Lipton, Z. C., The Mythos of Model Interpretability, arXiv:1606.03490 (2016).
Liu, H.-W., Lin, C.-F., & Chen, Y.-J., Beyond State v. Loomis: Artificial Intelligence, Government Algorithmization, and Accountability, 27 INT’L. J. L. & INFO. TECH. 122 (2019).
Lubet, S., Judicial Discipline and Judicial Independence, 61(3) L. & CONTEMP. PROBS. 59 (1998).
Lum, K. & Isaac, W., To Predict and Serve?, 13(5) SIGNIFICANCE 14 (2016).
Mallett, S. J., Judicial Discretion in Sentencing: A Justice System That Is No Longer Just, 46 VICTORIA U. WELLINGTON L. REV. 533 (2015).
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., Rochester, N., & Shannon, C. E., A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence, 27(4) AI MAG. 12 (2006).
McCarty, L. T., Reflections on Taxman: An Experiment in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning, 90 HARV. L. REV. 837 (1977).
Melton, J., & Ginsburg, T., Does De Jure Judicial Independence Really Matter? A Reevaluation of Explanations for Judicial Independence 190 (Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 612 2014).
Montavon, G., Samek, W., & Müller, K.-R., Methods for Interpreting and Understanding Deep Neural Networks, 73 DIGITAL SIGNAL PROCESSING 1 (2018).
Morris, N., The Future of Imprisonment: Toward a punitive Philosophy, 72(6) MICH. L. REV. 1161 (1974).
Moses, L. B., Zalnieriute, M., Legg, M., Bell, F., & Silove, J., AI Decision-Making and the Courts: A Guide for Judges, Tribunal Members and Court Administrators, AIJA 1, 30 (2022).
Murdoch, W., Singh, C., Kumbier, K., & Yu, B., Definitions, Methods, and Applications in Interpretable Machine Learning, 116(44) PROC. NATIONAL ACAD. SCI. 22071 (2019).
Murphy, J., Marxism and Retribution, 2(3) PHIL & PUB. AFF. 217 (1973).
Murrah, A. P., Book Review: Criminal Sentences: Law without Order, 20(2) CRIME & DELINQUENCY 186 (1974).
Myatt, J. M., & Chanenson, S. L., The Use of Risk Assessment at Sentencing: Implications for Research and Policy 3 (Villanova University Charles Widger School of Working Paper Series 2016).
Nitta, K., & Satoh, K., AI Applications to the Law Domain in Japan, 7 ASIAN J.L. & SOC’Y 471, 493 (2020).
Norton, M. I., Vandello, J. A., & Darley, J. N., Casuistry and Social Category Bias, 87(6) J. PERSONALITY & SOC. PSY. 817 (2004).
Pasquale, F., & Cashwell, G., Prediction, Persuasion, and the Jurisprudence of Behaviorism, 68 U. TORONTO L.J. 63 (2018).
Pasquale, F., Beyond Innovation and Competition: The Need for Qualified Transparency in Internet Intermediaries, 104 NW. U. L. REV. 105 (2010).
Popp, W. G., & Schlink, B., JUDITH, A Computer Program to Advise Lawyers in Reasoning a Case, 15 JURIMETRICS J. 303 (1975).
Putera, N. S. F. M. S., Saripan, H., Bajury, M. S. A., & Ya’cob, S. N., Artificial Intelligence-Powered Criminal Sentencing in Malaysia: A Conflict with the Rule of Law, 7(S17) ENVIRONMENT-BEHAVIOUR PROC. J. 441 (2022).
Räuker, T., Ho, A., Casper, S., & Hadfield-Menell, D., Toward Transparent AI: A Survey on Interpreting the Inner Structures of Deep Neural Networks, in 2023 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML).
Redding, R. E., Evidence-Based Sentencing: The Science of Sentencing Policy and Practice, 09-41 L. STUD.RES. PAPER SERIES No. 1 (2009).
Robinson, P. H., The A.L.I.'s Proposed Distributive Principle of 'Limiting Retributivism': Does It Mean In Practice Anything Other Than Pure Desert?, 7 BUFF. CRIM. L. REV. 3 (2003).
Roth, A., Trial by Machine, 104(5) GA. L. REV. 1245 (2016).
Sanghvi H., Saripan, H., Bajury, M. S. A., & Ya’cob, S. N., Digitalisation of Judiciary in Malaysia: Application of Artificial Intelligence in the Sentencing Process, 2022 PROC. INT’L CONG. L. & DIGITALISATION 91 (2022).
Selbst, A. D. & Barcoas, S., The Intuitive Appeal of Explainable Machines, 87(3) FORDHARM L. REV. 1085 (2018).
Simmons, R., Big Data, Machine Judges, and the Legitimacy of the Criminal Justice System, 52(2) U.C. L. REV. 1067 (2018).
Spamann, H., & Klöhn, L., Justice Is Less Blind, and Less Legalistic, than We Thought: Evidence from an Experiment with Real Judges, 45(2) J.L. STUD. 256 (2016).
Susskind, R. E., Expert Systems in Law out of the Research Laboratory and Into the Marketplace, 87 INT’L. CONF. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE & L. 1 (1987).
Terzidou, K., The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary and Its Compliance with the Right to a Fair Trial, 31, J. JUD. ADMIN. 154 (2022).
Tonry, M., Reconsidering Indeterminate and Structured Sentencing, 2 SENTENCING & CORRECTIONS 1 (1999).
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D., Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases, 185 SCI. 1124 (1974).
Ulenaers, J., The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Right to a Fair Trial: Towards a Robot Judge?, 11(2) ASIAN J.L. ECON. 1 (2020).
van Dijk, F., van Tulder, F., & Lugten, Y., Independence of Judges: Judicial Perceptions and Formal Safeguards (Netherlands Council for the Judiciary Working Paper No.1 2016).
VanBenschoten, S., Risk/Needs Assessment: Is This the Best We Can Do?, 72 FED. PROBATION 38 (2008).
Volokh, E., Chief Justice Robot, 68(6) DUKE L.J. 1135 (2019).
von Hirsch, A., The "Desert" Model for Sentencing: Its Influence, Prospects, and Alternatives, 74(2) SOC. RES. 413 (2007).
Wistrich, A. J., Rachlinski J. J., & Guthrie, C., Herat Versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law of Follow Their Feelings, 93(4) TEXAS L. REV. 855 (2015).
Završnik, A., Algorithmic Justice: Algorithms and Big Data in Criminal Justice Settings, 18(5) EUR. J. CRIMINOLOGY 623 (2021).
Završnik, A., Criminal Justice, Artificial Intelligence Systems, and Human Rights, 20 ERA FORUM 567 (2020).
Zerilli, J., Knott, A., Maclaurin, J., & Gavaghan, C., Transparency in Algorithmic and Human Decision-Making: Is There a Double Standard?, 32 PHIL. & TECH. 661 (2019).

書籍
BAGARIC, M., PUNISHMENT AND SENTENCING (2001).
FRASE, R. S., JUST SENTENCING: PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES FOR A WORKABLE SYSTEM (2013).
GALLANT, S. I., NEURAL NETWORK LEARNING AND EXPERT SYSTEMS (1993).
Gigerenzer, G., GUT FEELINGS: THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNCONSCIOUS (2008).
Hart, H.L.A. Punishment and Responsibility (2d. 2008).
HENHAM, R., SENTENCING (2018).
KAMATH, U., & LIU, J., EXPLAINABLE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERPRETABLE MACHINE LEARNING (2021).
LI, D., & DU, Y., ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE WITH UNCERTAINTY 15 (2d ed. 2017).
MOORE, M. S., PLACING BLAME: A THEORY OF THE CRIMINAL LAW (2010).
PASQUALE, F., THE BLACK BOX SOCIETY: THE SECRET ALGORITHMS THAT CONTROL MONEY AND INFORMATION (2016).
RUSSELL, S., & NORVIG, P., ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE A MODERN APPROACH (3d ed. 2011).
TONRY, M., SENTENCING MATTERS (1996).
WILSON, J. Q., THINKING ABOUT CRIME (1975).
YEO, S., MORGAN, N., & CHEONG, C. W., CRIMINAL LAW IN MALAYSIA AND SINGAPORE (2012).

書之篇章
Bagaric M., & Hunter, D., Enhancing the Integrity of the Sentencing Process through the Use of Artificial Intelligence, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 122 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Bernhardt, W., The Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Field of Justice, in INTERNET AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES LAW: PERSPECTIVES AND CHALLENGES 173 (Dariusz Szostek & Mariusz Zalucki eds., 2021).
Burgess, E. W., Factors Determining Success or Failure on Parole, in PAROLE AND THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE 205 (1928).
Caverni, J.-P., Fabre, J.-M., & Gonzalez, M., Cognitive Biases: Their Contribution for Understanding Human Cognitive Process, in COGNITIVE BIASES 7 (Jean-Paul Caverni, Jean-Marc Fabre & Michel Gonzalez eds., 1990).
Dagan, D., & Baron, S., The Compassionate Computer Algorithms, Sentencing, and Mercy, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 145 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Flasiński, M., History of Artificial Intelligence, in INTRODUCTION TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 3 (2016).
Frase, R. S., Limiting Retributivism, in THE FUTURE OF IMPRISONMENT 83 (Micheal Tonry ed., 2004).
Greene, J. D., The Secret Joke of Kant’s Soul, in MORAL TRIBES: EMOTION, REASON, AND THE GAP BETWEEN US AND THEM 35 (2008).
Hakeem, M., The Validity of the Burgess Method of Parole Prediction, 53(5) AM. J. SOCIOLOGY 376 (1948).
Haselton, M. G., Netle, D., & Murray, D. R., The Evolution of Cognitive Bias, in THE HANDBOOK OF EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY 968 (David M. Buss ed., 2005).
Johnson, B. D., Sentencing, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1 (Michael Tonry ed., 2012).
Lippert-Rasmussen, K., Algorithm-Based Sentencing and Discrimination, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 114 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Lippke, R. L., Plea Bargaining Principled Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 184 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Roberts, J. V., & Plesničar, M. M., Sentencing, Legitimacy, and Public Opinion, in TRUST AND LEGITIMACY IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 33 (Gorazd Meško & Justice Tankebe eds., 2015).
Ryberg, J., & Roberts, J. V., Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 1 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Ryberg, J., Sentencing and Algorithmic Transparency, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 13 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F., Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?, in HEURISTICS AND BIASES: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF INTUITIVE JUDGMENT 436 (2002).
Tania S., & Cornes, R., Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive Judging, in THE RESPONSIVE JUDGE: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 87 (Tania Sourdin & Archie Zariski eds., 2018).
Tonry, M., Punishment, in THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF CRIME AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1 (Michael Tonry ed., 2012).
van Wingerden, S., & Plesničar, M. M., Artificial Intelligence and Sentencing, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 230 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Zalnieriute, M., & Bell, F., Technology and the Judicial Role, in THE JUDGE, THE JUDICIARY AND THE COURT: INDIVIDUAL, COLLEGIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL JUDICIAL DYNAMICS IN AUSTRALIA 116 (Gabrielle Appleby & Andrew Lynch eds., 2021).

研究報告
Chouldechova, A., & Lum, K., The Present and Future of AI in Pre-Trial Risk Assessment Instruments (June 2020), https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/52516/AI-in-Pre-Trial-Risk-Assessment-Brief-June-2020-R2.pdf.
Christin, A., Rosenblat, A., & Boyd, D., Courts and Predictive Algorithms, DATA & SOCIETY (Oct. 27, 2015), https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Courts_and_Predictive_Algorithms.pdf.
Kehl, D., Guo, P., & Kessler, S., Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing, Responsive Communities Initiative, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School (2017), https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/33746041/2017-07_responsivecommunities_2.pdf.
Lim, C., & Gong, R., Artificial Intelligence in the Courts: AI Sentencing in Sabah and Sarawak, Khazanah Research Institute (2020), http://www.krinstitute.org/assets/contentMS/img/template/editor/210206 AI in the Courts v4.pdf.
Practitioners Guide to COMPAS, NORTHPOINTE, (Apr. 4, 2019), https://www.equivant.com/wp-content/uploads/Practitioners-Guide-to-COMPAS-Core-040419.pdf.
Practitioners Guide to COMPAS, NORTHPOINTE, (Aug. 17, 2012), https://njoselson.github.io/pdfs/FieldGuide2_081412.pdf.
Practitioners Guide to COMPAS, Northpointe, (Mar. 13, 2015), https://archive.epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/crim-justice/EPIC-16-06-23-WI-FOIA-201600805-COMPASPractionerGuide.pdf.
Public Safety Assessment: Risk Factors and Formula, ARNOLD FOUNDATION, https://craftmediabucket.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/PDFs/PSA-Risk-Factors-and-Formula.pdf (last visited July 19, 2024).
Vera Institute of Justice, Center on Sentencing and Corrections, Reinvestment Task Force 4 (Oct. 12, 2011), https://www.ma4jr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/vera-institute-memo-on-risk-assessment-for-delaware-2011.pdf.
Warren, R. K., Evidence-Based Practice to Reduce Recidivism: Implications for State Judiciaries (2007), https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/023358.pdf.

網路文獻
A Visual Guide to AI, ROSS, https://www.rossintelligence.com/what-is-ai (last visited Feb. 8, 2024).
About the Public Safety Assessment: How It Works, ADVANCING PRETRIAL POLICY AND RESEARCH, https://advancingpretrial.org/psa/factors/ (last visited June 17, 2024).
AI Interview: Ravel and the AI Revolution in Legal Research, ARTIFICIAL LAWYER (Jan. 23, 2017), https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2017/01/23/al-interview-ravel-and-the-ai-revolution-in-legal-research/.
AI on Trial – Will the Backlog of Cases Finally Be Cleared?, ACARECH (Dec. 19, 2023), https://en.acatech.de/allgemein/ai-on-trial/.
Angwin, J., Larson, J., Mattu, S., & Kirchner, L., Machine Bias, PROPUBLICA (May 23, 2016), https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing.
binti Tuan Mat, T. T. M., Chief Justice in Federal Court of Malaysia, Address at International Malaysia Law Conference (July 10, 2023), https://www.malaysianbar.org.my/article/news/speeches/speeches/opening-address-by-the-right-honourable-tun-tengku-maimun-binti-tuan-mat-chief-justice-federal-court-of-malaysia-at-imlc-2023-10-july-2023-shangri-la-hotel-kuala-lumpur-.
Boucai, M., Judicial Independence: Whether, Why and How to Defend It (2004), https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/other_scholarship/158/?utm_source=digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu%2Fother_scholarship%2F158&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.
Bybee, K. J., & Keck, T. M., The Courts and Public Opinion, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY MAXWELL SCHOOL OF CITIZENSHIP & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (Sept. 1, 2006), https://www.maxwell.syr.edu/news/article/the-courts-and-public-opinion.
Chiao, V. Transparency at Sentencing, in SENTENCING AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE 34 (Jesper Ryberg & Julian V. Roberts eds., 2022).
Citron, D., (Un)Fairness of Risk Scores in Criminal Sentencing (July 13, 2016), FORBES, https://www.forbes.com/sites/daniellecitron/2016/07/13/unfairness-of-risk-scores-in-criminal-sentencing/.
Department of Justice, History of Risk Assessment, https://bja.ojp.gov/program/psrac/basics/history-risk-assessment#first-generation-professional-judgments (last visited July 19, 2024).
FitzGerald, M., France Bans Analytics of Judges’ Decisions, LEXOLOGY (June 21, 2019), https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ff53dfbe-0fe6-4dee-8a1d-990bf8459020.
France Bans Judge Analytics, 5 Years in Prison for Rule Breakers, ARTIFICIAL LAWYER (June 4, 2019), https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2019/06/04/france-bans-judge-analytics-5-years-in-prison-for-rule-breakers/.
Isarani, E., Algorithmic Due Process: Mistaken Accountability and Attribution in State v. Loomis, JOLT DIGEST (Aug. 31, 2017), https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/algorithmic-due-process-mistaken-accountability-and-attribution-in-state-v-loomis-1.
Jordan, T., A Historical Overview of the Risk Assessment Tools Utilised in the Criminal Justice System, TNJ’S (Aug. 2020), https://tnjconsulting.net.au/a-historical-overview-of-the-risk-assessment-tools-utilised-in-the-criminal-justice-system/.
Legal Tech Lab Cologne, Smart Sentencing, https://legaltechcologne.de/smart-sentencing/ (last visited Aug. 27, 2024).
Leong, F. C., Bread & Kaya: 2020 Cyberlaw Cases: Cyberlaw in the Covid-19 Era (June 21, 2021), http://foongchengleong.com/wp/bread-kaya-27-2020-cyberlaw-cases-cyberlaw-in-the-covid-19-era/.
Liew, M. E., How Courts in Sabah and Sarawak are Sentencing with the Help of AI, GOV INSIDER (Nov. 24, 2021), https://govinsider.asia/intl-en/article/how-courts-in-sabah-and-sarawak-are-sentencing-with-the-help-of-ai-abang-iskandar-malaysia
Martinus, D., Malaysia Tests AI Court Sentencing despite Ethical Concerns Raised by Lawyers, MASHABLE SE ASIA (Apr. 13, 2022), https://sea.mashable.com/tech/20026/malaysia-tests-ai-court-sentencing-despite-ethical-concerns-raised-by-lawyers.
McCarthy, J., Minsky, M. L., & Rochester, N., A Proposal for the Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence 1-13 (Aug. 31, 1955), http://jmc.stanford.edu/articles/dartmouth/dartmouth.pdf.
Niller, E., Can AI Be A Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So, WEIRD (Mar. 25, 2019), https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/.
Northpointe Inc., Practitioner’s Guide to COMPAS Core (Mar. 19, 2015), https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2840784/Practitioner -s-Guide-to-COMPAS-Core.pdf.
Pasquale, F., Secret Algorithms Threaten the Rule of Law, MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW (June 1, 2017), https://www.technologyreview.com/2017/06/01/151447/secret-algorithms-threaten-the-rule-of-law/.
Product Features, RAVEL, https://ravellaw.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/categories/201780078-Product-Features (last visited May 20, 2020).
Public Safety Assessment: A Risk Tools That Promotes Safety, Equity, and Justice, ARNOLD VENTURES (Aug. 14, 2017), https://www.arnoldventures.org/stories/public-safety-assessment-risk-tool-promotes-safety-equity-justice.
Save Lives and Find Critical Evidence with the Leading Gunshot Detection System, SOUNDTHINKING, https://www.soundthinking.com/law-enforcement/leading-gunshot-detection-system/ (last visited Feb. 8, 2024).
Schuchmann, S., History of the Second AI Winter, MEDIUM (May 13, 2019), https://towardsdatascience.com/history-of-the-second-ai-winter-406f18789d45.
Scope of Coverage, ROSS, https://www.rossintelligence.com/scope-of-coverage (last visited Feb. 8, 2024).
Subramaniam, P., Programmed Prejudice, THE EDGE (Oct. 4, 2021), https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/cover-story-programmed-prejudice.
Vasdani, T., From Estonian AI Judges to Robot Mediators in Canada, U.K., LEXISNEXIS, https://www.lexisnexis.ca/en-ca/ihc/2019-06/from-estonian-ai-judges-to-robot-mediators-in-canada-uk.page (last visited Aug. 25, 2024).
What Does Ravel's Case Coverage Include, RAVEL, https://ravellaw.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212634578-What-does-Ravel-s-case-coverage-include- (last visited Dec 2, 2021).
What Does Ravel's Case Coverage Include, RAVEL, https://ravellaw.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/212634578-What-does-Ravel-s-case-coverage-include- (last visited May 20, 2020).

官方及政府報告
bin Ishak, A. M., Sentencing Council in Malaysia: A Necessity or Otherwise, in The Malaysian Judiciary Yearbook 182-208 (2012).
E-Court Division, Office of the Chief Registrar Federal Court of Malaysia (last visited July 22, 2024), https://www.kehakiman.gov.my/en/e-court-division.
E-Kehakiman Sabah and Sarawak, Artificial Intelligence (AI), https://ekss-portal.kehakiman.gov.my/portals/web/home/article_view/0/5/1 (last visited July 21, 2024).
Hashim, A. I. A., The Rise of the Machines: Judges vs Artificial Intelligence from the Malaysian Perspective, in The Malaysian Judiciary Yearbook 102-6 (2020).
Makinudin, Z. A., Criminal Law and the Criminal Justice System in Malaysia, in The Malaysian Judiciary Yearbook 144-49 (2016).
Meera, V. A. M., Sentencing Policy and Judicial Discretion, in The Malaysian Judiciary Yearbook 68-70 (2015).
Ministry of Justice, Republic of Estonia, Estonia Does Not Develop AI Judge (Feb. 16, 2022), https://www.just.ee/en/news/estonia-does-not-develop-ai-judge.
National Institute of Corrections, A Framework for Evidence-Based Decision Making in State and Local Criminal Justice Systems (4th ed., 2017).