In recent years, the deployment of digital platforms and intelligent infrastructures, as emerging drivers of judicial governance, has provided an unprecedented opportunity to enhance structural transparency, expedite judicial proceedings, and preserve the integrity of evidence within modern criminal justice systems. The present study primarily seeks to examine the normative challenges arising from the application of such technologies across various stages of criminal proceedings and to assess their compatibility with the principles of fair trial and the classical doctrine of criminal liability. It appears that, notwithstanding the facilitative capacities of these platforms, the predominance of an excessively instrumentalist approach, coupled with the structural opacity of algorithms, has transformed the judge’s inner conviction into a form of statistical justice. This shift not only undermines the rights of the defense but also poses a fundamental challenge to the traditional paradigm of attributing criminal responsibility. Accordingly, the principal objective of this research is to elucidate the legal dimensions of judicial platforms and to propose a normative framework aimed at striking a balance between the functionalism of digital adjudication and the fundamental rights of the accused, with a comparative perspective on global models. The methodology adopted in this article is descriptive-analytical, relying on library-based data collection and an in-depth examination of legal documents and international judicial practices. The findings indicate that the legitimacy of intelligent adjudication is contingent upon adherence to the “human-in-the-loop” doctrine and a transition toward a model of equitable distribution of responsibility among the designer, the user, and the system itself. Such an approach is essential to prevent the sacrifice of human dignity at the altar of technical efficiency and to ensure the preservation of judicial independence.