In a study published last month in the journal Law and Human Behavior, Yongjie Sun and his colleagues compared the performance of AI jurors and human jurors in a hypothetical criminal case (Sun et al., 2025).

The AI jurors were three large language models (LLMs, also known as chatbots)—two different versions of OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Anthropic’s Claude. The human jurors were 752 university students who had participated in an earlier, separate study conducted by Bailey Fraser and her colleagues (Fraser at al., 2023). All of the jurors evaluated testimonial evidence and rendered a verdict in a case of alleged sexual assault.

If AI jurors can accurately and fairly evaluate the evidence for and against a defendant, they may be superior to human jurors overall. Why? Because AI jurors work more quickly, do not get tired, do not lose focus, and do not forget important information. They can work around the clock, do not need to be paid, and will not be influenced by other jurors.

AI jurors may also be less biased than human jurors. Their decisions may be less affected by factors such as a defendant’s race or social status that, according to the law, should not affect jurors’ decisions about guilt and innocence.

It was this last possibility that motivated Sun and his colleagues to conduct their study. They examined the reactions of AI jurors and human jurors to four factors that, legally speaking, should have no bearing on determinations of guilt.

The factors they examined were the race of the defendant (Black or White), the social status of the defendant (a dentist or a landscaper), the number of accusers........

© Psychology Today