By Stuart Kerr, Technology Correspondent
Published: July 4, 2025 | Last Updated: July 4, 2025
👉 About the Author | @liveaiwire | Email: liveaiwire@gmail.com
Inside the towering walls of modern prisons, a silent observer is at work—one that never sleeps, never blinks, and never forgets. Artificial intelligence is quietly becoming a central feature of correctional systems around the world, used to monitor inmates, predict violent behaviour, and even guide parole decisions. While governments tout these technologies as tools for safety and efficiency, critics warn that they may be automating injustice. When freedom and surveillance collide, who really gets to decide?
Cameras That Think
AI-powered video analytics are now embedded in many high-security prisons. These systems go beyond simple motion detection: they track body language, facial expressions, and interactions to alert guards to potentially aggressive behaviour before it happens.
In the UK, the Ministry of Justice has rolled out pilot projects using AI surveillance in three major facilities. According to internal reports, the system flagged 58 incidents before they escalated. However, it also triggered false alarms—particularly for neurodivergent inmates whose behaviours deviated from statistical norms.
In the United States, private corrections companies have adopted similar tools to reduce staffing costs. Algorithms monitor everything from cell activity to cafeteria line patterns, creating detailed behavioural profiles on each inmate.
Predicting the “Risk” to Society
Beyond the walls, AI is being used to assess recidivism risk. Tools like COMPAS and RecidAI generate risk scores used by parole boards to determine whether inmates should be released early or kept behind bars.
Supporters argue these systems increase fairness by applying consistent criteria. But multiple investigations—including a landmark study by ProPublica—have found that these algorithms often exhibit racial bias, overestimating risk for Black and Latino inmates while underestimating it for white counterparts.
A 2024 review by the Council of Europe called for an immediate moratorium on algorithmic risk scoring in judicial contexts until explainability and transparency standards can be enforced.
Surveillance Creep
What starts in prisons rarely stays there. Several jurisdictions in Brazil and India are now integrating prison AI systems with national ID and law enforcement databases. This raises concerns about creating permanent “digital shadows” that follow ex-prisoners long after their release.
In France, a leaked proposal by the Interior Ministry suggested expanding AI surveillance used in youth detention centres to public schools. Civil liberties organisations pushed back, arguing that normalising algorithmic surveillance in vulnerable populations could have long-term consequences for privacy and civil rights.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has warned of what it calls “correctional creep”—the gradual expansion of punitive technologies into civilian life.
Ethics Behind Bars
Advocates for prison reform argue that AI should be used to improve rehabilitation, not just reinforce control. In Norway, for example, AI tools are being piloted to match inmates with vocational training programmes based on personality and aptitude, with early signs of reduced reoffending.
However, these positive use cases remain rare. In many systems, AI’s role is surveillance-first, rehabilitation-second. And unlike the outside world, prisoners typically cannot opt out or give meaningful consent.
“There’s no informed consent when you’re incarcerated,” says Dr. Leonie Marchand, a criminal justice ethicist at the University of Geneva. “That makes ethical AI use in prisons uniquely challenging.”
A Call for Oversight
Globally, oversight remains weak. Most correctional AI tools are developed by private companies and shielded by proprietary software protections. This makes it difficult for journalists, researchers, or even governments to audit their inner workings.
But change may be on the horizon. The European Parliament is currently debating a bill that would classify all prison-based AI applications as “high-risk,” subjecting them to strict transparency and human review mandates. Meanwhile, advocacy groups are calling for prisoner representation in AI ethics boards.
Prisons have long been places where power is concentrated and rights are contested. The rise of AI doesn’t change that—it intensifies it.
Sources:
-
Council of Europe: Report on AI and Correctional Systems, 2024
-
Electronic Frontier Foundation: AI Surveillance in Prisons
-
ProPublica: “Machine Bias” Recidivism Analysis, 2023
-
UK Ministry of Justice AI Monitoring Pilot Summary, 2025
Related Articles on LiveAIWire:
