The article was not clear (already the title can be easily misinterpreted), but in the end it seems to mean something very reasonable, which is good to state an

The article was not clear (already the title can be easily misinterpreted), but in the end it seems to mean something very reasonable, which is good to state and clearly: if decision making is done through a non deterministic algorithm, and the resulting decisions are criminal, the guilt remains on the decisor, and the blame cannot fall on generated data and advice: the onus of the assessment of the inputs that orient decision remain on the decisor - especially with imprecise tools -, and the whole responsibility. (To the best of my interpretation: correct if you understood differently.)