Who Owns Justice Technology? Following the Money Behind the Systems

April 2026

Justice Technology Transparency Project

When people think about the justice system, they rarely think about private companies. But behind many of the tools used in courts, policing, and corrections are for-profit vendors designing, selling, and maintaining the technology.

Understanding who builds and profits from these systems is a critical and often overlooked part of accountability.

The Business of Justice Technology

Many justice system tools are not created by the government. Instead, agencies contract with private companies to provide:

• Risk assessment software

• Surveillance systems

• Facial recognition tools

• Digital evidence platforms

• Data analytics dashboards

These contracts can cost thousands, sometimes millions of taxpayer dollars.

But unlike other public expenditures, the details of these agreements are often difficult to access or understand.

The Problem with Proprietary Systems

Most vendors classify their technology as proprietary, meaning:

• The code is not publicly available

• The methodology is protected as a trade secret

• Independent researchers cannot easily evaluate the system

This creates a major issue:

If a tool helps influence decisions about someone’s freedom, but no one outside the company can examine how it works, who is actually accountable?

Contracts Without Clarity

Public records requests in other states have revealed that many justice technology contracts:

• Do not require independent bias testing

• Lack clear performance benchmarks

• Automatically renew without re-evaluation

• Limit how much information agencies can disclose to the public

This means governments may be relying on systems without fully understanding their risks or limitations.

When Profit Meets Public Power

Private companies are incentivized to sell their products, not necessarily to ensure fairness in the justice system.

This creates tension between:

• Public responsibility (fairness, due process, rights)

• Private incentives (profit, growth, market expansion)

Without strong oversight, this dynamic can lead to the adoption of tools that are efficient but not equitable.

Why This Matters in Mississippi

Mississippi currently does not have a centralized, publicly accessible database of:

• Justice technology vendors

• Active contracts

• System costs

• Performance evaluations

This makes it difficult to answer basic questions like:

• Who is providing these tools?

• How much are they being paid?

• What standards are they held to?

Transparency is not just about the technology itself; it’s also about the systems of power and money behind it.

What Accountability Could Look Like

To ensure responsible use of justice technology, policymakers could consider:

• Requiring public disclosure of vendor contracts

• Mandating independent testing before and after deployment

• Setting clear performance and accuracy standards

• Allowing greater public access to system information

• Creating review processes before contract renewals

These steps would help ensure that public funds are used responsibly and that justice is not influenced by unchecked private systems.

Moving Forward

At the Justice Technology Transparency Project, we are expanding our focus to include vendor accountability and procurement transparency.

Our next steps include:

• Investigating contracts across agencies

• Identifying key technology providers

• Analyzing how these systems are evaluated

• Publishing findings in accessible formats

Justice is not just shaped in courtrooms — it is also shaped in contracts, code, and corporate decisions.

Understanding who builds these systems is essential to understanding how they shape outcomes.

---

Disclaimer: This blog is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

---