Trigger Warning: Mass-shooting, rape.

I think that this technology shouldn't be used as evidence, but just as a tool to find potential (but not definitive) criminals/perpetrators and to find suspects way faster. However, the person should only be sentenced by a judge if they find evidence of the crime that is not based on their face.

Here are some examples:

• There is a mass-shooting. A camera films a video of the mass-shooter face. Police don't know where nor who the mass-shooter is. Police uses Artificial Intelligence to find people that have a similar face to the mass-shooter. They find 7 people with the same face in the USA. They start investigating each person and they find that 1 of the 7 face-suspects bought a gun with the same type of bullets that the ones found in the crime scene. They also find that this one suspect has shoes that match the shape of the blood footprints of the crime scene. And they find that the suspect had been searching in Google Maps the location of the crime scene before the mass-shooting happened. They arrest this one suspect and keep looking for more evidence and they finally go to trial, and the overwhelming evidence tells they are guilty, so they sentence them to life in prison or death penalty (I'm not going to argue right now whether the death penalty is wrong or right. That's off-topic).
• A woman is raped by a man. A camara from a bar films the video of the rapist face. Police don't know where nor who the rapist is. Police uses Artificial Intelligence to find people that have a similar face to the rapist. They find 9 people with the same face in the USA. They take DNA samples from each of these 9 people and compare them to the DNA from the semen found in the victim's body. It happens that 1 of these 9 people have the exact same DNA. They start investigating this man and find that his friends were in the same bar of the crime scene and the same day of the crime. His friends tell police that that they were with the current suspect at that bar on that day. The man goes to trial, more evidence of the crime is found and he is sentenced.

As you can see, I don't support using Artificial Intelligence as definitive evidence to sentence someone to prison time nor death penalty. But I think that it can make the process of finding possible/potential criminals much easier and much faster, and then allow police to start looking for evidence in one of each suspects. If police doesn't find evidence in one, multiple or all of the suspects, they should let them go. A suspect should only be sentenced if they find more evidence than the one from the Artificial Intelligence research. Of course, when I say that they should be sentenced if they find "more evidene" of the suspect, I mean solid and important evidence. I don't mean evidence such as "The suspect lives in the same city as the victim, therefore they are guilty". I mean high-quality evidence.

By the way, I don't know too much about crimes nor types of evidence nor the protocols of the police, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I'm just guessing how the process could be like.