That's a hopefully fixable organization problem. I think the closest we should let AI get to judicial decisions is suggested ranges. There still needs to be a person a decision traces back to, who's not just passing through what the computer says.
Tech problems sometimes get fixed, and occasionally either eliminate a class of human problems or create new ones. It's the only thing that changes... Rejecting tech wholesale means embracing the status quo.
"Some weights in an algorithm are wrong" seems a much less fraught problem.