ALGORITHMIC RISK ASSESSMENT IN PAROLE DECISIONS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN AND EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

This article examines the application of algorithmic recidivism risk assessment systems in parole procedures within a comparative framework. It analyzes the experience of Council of Europe member states (the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) alongside the current legal regulation of parole in the Republic of Kazakhstan. The aim of the study is to substantiate the architecture of a national risk assessment algorithm integrated with the information systems “Torelik”, the Committee on Legal Statistics and Special Records of the Prosecutor General’s Office (KSPSU), and the Automated Information System of Enforcement Proceedings (AIS OIP) in order to verify the fulfillment of civil obligations. The methodological framework of the research is based on comparative legal, statistical, and formal legal methods. The analysis of European legislation and judicial statistics of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2020–2025 demonstrates that the Kazakhstani parole model relies on a system of behavioral grading of convicted persons, which has become a mandatory element in the preparation of institutional reports submitted to the court when considering parole applications. However, these indicators are characterized by low predictive accuracy and a high degree of subjectivity in their formation. Based on the findings, recommendations are formulated for the phased adaptation of algorithmic risk assessment tools to the conditions of the Kazakhstani legal system. It has been established that, unlike its European counterparts, the Kazakhstani model lacks both a validated tool for predicting recidivism and an appellate mechanism for reviewing such assessments, resulting in substantial regional variation in parole approval rates. The practical significance of the study lies in proposing a phased roadmap for integrating algorithmic risk-assessment tools into Kazakhstan’s legal system while preserving the primacy of judicial discretion.

1. Mustafina T. (2024) Gumanizatsiya penitentsiarnoy sistemy kak prodvizheniye nenasil'stvennykh praktik. Vestnik YENU im. L.N. Gumilova. № 3 (148). Р. 231–250. [in Russian].

2. Bonta J., Andrews D. A. (2022) The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. 6th ed. New York: Routledge. 496 p. [in English].

3. Wermink H., Nieuwbeerta P., (2022) Blokland A. Risk Assessment in Dutch Parole Decisions: Predictive Validity of RISc // European Journal of Criminology. Vol. 19, No. 4. P. 812–834. [in English].

4. (2023) Ministry of Justice UK. Parole Board Annual Report 2022/23. London: HMSO. 87 p. [in English].

5. Akimzhanov T.K. (2023) Uslovno-dosrochnoye osvobozhdeniye v sisteme ugolovno-ispolnitel'noy politiki Respubliki Kazakhstan // Vestnik Karagandinskogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo». № 2 (110). Р. 18–29. [in Russian].

6. Verkhovnyy Sud obsudil voprosy uslovno-dosrochnogo osvobozhdeniya i zameny nakazaniya. Available at:– URL: https://optimism.kz/2026/03/02/verhovnyj-sud-obsudil-voprosy-uslovno-dosrochnogo-osvobozhdeniya-izameny-nakazaniya/ [in Russian] (accessed: 25.02.2026).

7. European Parliament. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on Artificial Intelligence (AI Act). — OJ L 1689, 12.07.2024. Available – URL:https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng [in English] (accessed: 27.02.2026)

8. Ukaz Prezidenta Respubliki Kazakhstan ot 15 oktyabrya 2021 goda № 674 «Ob utverzhdenii Kontseptsii pravovoy politiki Respubliki Kazakhstan do 2030 goda». Astana: Available – URL: https://hrlib.kz/document/299261 [in Russian] (accessed: 01.03.2026)

9. Dressel J., Farid H. (2021) The Accuracy, Fairness, and Limits of Predicting Recidivism // Science Advances. Vol. 7. No. 14. Art. eabc0765. [in English]

10. Chouldechova A. (2021) Fair Prediction with Disparate Impact: A Study of Bias in Recidivism Prediction Instruments // Big Data. Vol. 9, No. 2. P. 153–163. [in English]

11. Hannah-Moffat K. (2020) Actuarial Sentencing: An «Unsettled» and Uncertain Future // Annual Review of Criminology. Vol. 3. P. 145–166. [in English]

12. Shnarbayev B.K. (2020) Perspektivy razvitiya ugolovno-ispolnitel'noy sistemy Respubliki Kazakhstan // Vestnik Karagandinskogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo». № 3 (103). Р. 113–117. [in English]

13. Nuridin S.I. (2023) Nekotoryye voprosy primeneniya uslovno-dosrochnogo osvobozhdeniya v Respublike Kazakhstan: teoriya i praktika // Vserossiyskiy kriminologicheskiy zhurnal. T. 17. № 2. Р. 193–205. [in Russian].

14. Dessecker A. (2021) Risk Assessment in German Sentencing and Prison Law // European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. Vol. 27. No. 3. P. 341–358. [in Russian]

15. Kriminalvården (Swedish Prison and Probation Service). Annual Report 2023. 2024. Norrköping. 112 p.

16. (2023) CEPEJ. Ethical Principles for the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Justice Systems. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. 32 p. [in English]

17. Selivorstov V.I., Grushin F.V., Lyadov E.V. (2021) Ugolovno-ispolnitel'naya politika v chasti uslovnodosrochnogo osvobozhdeniya // Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo. № 42. Р. 76–84.

18. Council of Europe. Recommendation CM/Rec (2020) 4 on Electronic Monitoring. Strasbourg, 2020. Available – URL: https://www.coe.int/en/web/prison/conventions-recommendations [in English] (accessed: 19.02.2026)

19. Van der Werff M., Kunz K. (2023) Recidivism Risk Assessment in Criminal Proceedings: A European Perspective // International Journal of Criminal Justice. Vol. 15. No. 1. P. 44–61. [in English]