Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Policy

aiqbench analysis

This paper explores the intersection of AI systems and criminal justice, arguing that indefinite digital records combined with algorithmic inference threaten societal concepts of forgiveness and personal rehabilitation. The authors propose a "right to remain unfinished," suggesting ethical frameworks must evolve beyond standard accuracy metrics to include time limits on how past data influences future life outcomes. This work addresses critical policy implications for the governance of AI in high-stakes social domains.
Source coveringarXiv
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

The Imperishable Record, Forgiveness, and the Future of Criminal Justice

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2610.15499v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Digital technologies can preserve records of wrongdoing indefinitely, and AI can give those records continuing influence over a person's future. We describe this condition as the eternal data present and argue that it threatens the possibility of forgiveness. In criminal justice, formal punishment has an end, whereas the harms caused by the continued use of criminal records may not. Drawing on Hegel's account of the "hard heart" and Arendt's account of the irreversibility of action, we distinguish two dangers that digital systems can combine. People may be permanently identified with what they have done, and acts that cannot be undone may continue to determine what happens to them. We propose a right to remain unfinished, supported by rights to limits on the weight given to older records, to re-evaluation in light of personal change, to reassessment of inferences that affect their lives, and to time limits on the use of records in specified decisions. These proposals extend the ethics of AI beyond accuracy, transparency, and non-discrimination to address how long past wrongdoing should be allowed to govern a person's life.

Abstract:Digital technologies can preserve records of wrongdoing indefinitely, and AI can give those records continuing influence over a person's future. We describe this condition as the eternal data present and argue that it threatens the possibility of forgiveness. In criminal justice, formal punishment has an end, whereas the harms caused by the continued use of criminal records may not. Drawing on Hegel's account of the "hard heart" and Arendt's account of the irreversibility of action, we distinguish two dangers that digital systems can combine. People may be permanently identified with what they have done, and acts that cannot be undone may continue to determine what happens to them. We propose a right to remain unfinished, supported by rights to limits on the weight given to older records, to re-evaluation in light of personal change, to reassessment of inferences that affect their lives, and to time limits on the use of records in specified decisions. These proposals extend the ethics of AI beyond accuracy, transparency, and non-discrimination to address how long past wrongdoing should be allowed to govern a person's life.

Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2610.15499 [cs.CY]

(or arXiv:2610.15499v1 [cs.CY] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15499 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 278 words

Related coverage