The automaton-judge
Some reflections on the future of AI in judicial systems
Keywords:
Artificial Intelligence, judicial decision making, legal certainty, American juridical realismAbstract
Could robots replace judges in decision-making? The remarkable advancements in artificial intelligence bring this possibility closer than ever before. In this article, I will explore the underlying reasons for the success of the idea of using artificial intelligence in the justice field. The argument is that after the crisis of legal formalism, the prospect offered by artificial intelligence represents a nostalgic return to the past: that of a decision-making as a “mechanical” act, free from subjectivity and irrationality. This ideal, after being outdated as early as the last century, is becoming relevant again thanks to the spread of artificial intelligence tools. By reflecting on the potential positive and negative consequences that may arise from implementing computerized decision-making in justice, this article will aim to provide a more realistic understanding of the future of AI in judicial systems.
Downloads
Downloads:
14(2)_Ceresa_SZ 20
References
Aletras, N., et al., 2016. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science [online], 2:e93. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93
Bobbio, N., 1951. La certezza del diritto è un mito? Rivista internazionale di filosofia del diritto, 28, pp. 146–152.
Bobbio, N., 2011. Giusnaturalismo e positivismo giuridico. Bari/Rome: Laterza.
Carcaterra, A., 2019. Machinae autonome e decisione robotica. In: A. Carleo, ed., Decisione robotica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Catala, P., Le Droit à l’épreuve du numérique : Jus ex machina. In : F. Terré and M.A. Frison-Roche, eds., Droit, éthique, société. Paris : PUF, p. 126.
Cellan-Jones, R., 2017. The robot lawyers are here – and they’re winning. BBC news [online], 1 November. Available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41829534
Claude, C.S., and Longo, G., 2018. Le déluge des corrélations fallacieuses dans le big data. In : B. Stiegler, ed., La toile que nous voulons. Limoges : FYP, p. 156.
Covelli, R., 2019. Dall’informatizzazione della giustizia alla “decisione robotica”? Il giudice del merito. In: A. Carleo, ed., Decisione robotica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Danziger, S., Levav, J., and Avnaim-Pesso, L., 2011. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [online], 108(17), 6889–6892. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108
Durox, S., 2017. Des robots testés à la place des juges dans les cours d’appel de Rennes et Douai. Le Parisien [online], 30 October. Available at: http://www.leparisien.fr/faits-divers/des-robots-testes-a-la-place-des-juges-dans-les-cours-d-appel-de-rennes-et-douai-30-10-2017-7362198.php
Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), 2019. Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System [online]. Available at: https://epic.org/algorithmic-transparency/crim-justice/
Estevez, E., Fillottrani, P., and Linares Lejarraga, S., 2020. Prometea. Transformando la administración de justicia con herramientas de inteligencia artificial [online]. Washington D.C.: Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18235/0002378
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2016. Guidelines on how to drive change towards cyberjustice [online]. Strasbourg, 7 December, § 48–52. https://rm.coe.int/16807482de
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2018. European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment adopted by the CEPEJ during its 31st Plenary meeting [online]. Strasbourg, 3–4 December. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c
Ferrajoli, L., 1997. Diritto e Ragione. Teoria del garantismo penale. Rome/Bari: Laterza. (Originally published in 1989).
Ferrié, S., 2018. Les algorithmes à l’épreuve du droit au procès équitable. Procédures, 4/2018, pp. 4–9.
Forza, A., Menegon, G., and Rumiati, R., 2017. Il giudice emotivo. La decisione tra ragione ed emozione. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Frank, J., 1936. Law and the Modern Mind. New York: Tudor.
Gaboriau, S., 2018. Libertà e umanità del giudice: due valori fondamentali della giustizia. La giustizia digitale può garantire nel tempo la fedeltà a questi valori? Questione giustizia [online], 4/2018. Available at: https://www.questionegiustizia.it/rivista/articolo/liberta-e-umanita-del-giudice-due-valori-fondament_593.php
Garapon, A., and Lassègue, J., 2018. Justice digitale. Révolution graphique et rupture anthropologique. Paris : PUF.
Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., and Kahneman, D., 2002. Heuristic and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgement [online]. New York: Cambridge University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511808098
Holmes, O.W., 1987. The path of the law. Harvard Law Review [online], 10(8), pp. 1-20. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1322028
Irti, N., 2014. La crisi della fattispecie. Rivista di diritto processuale, 1/2014, p. 36.
Irti, N., 2016. Un diritto incalcolabile. Turin: Giappichelli.
Itzcovich, G., 2001. Il diritto come macchina. Razionalizzazione del diritto e forma giuridica in Max Weber. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica, 2/2001, pp. 365–393.
Kahneman, D., 2012. Pensieri lenti e veloci. Milan: Mondadori.
Luciani, M., 2019. La decisione giudiziaria robotica. In: A. Carleo, ed., Decisione robotica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Marra, R., 1995. La libertà degli ultimi uomini. Studi sul pensiero giuridico e politico di Max Weber. Turin: Giappichelli.
Marra, R., 2005. Max Weber: razionalità formale e razionalità materiale del diritto. Sociologia del diritto, 2/2005, pp. 43–73.
Niiler, E., 2019. Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So. Wired [online], 25 March. Available at: https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/
Pound, R., 1910. Law in books and law in action. American law review, 44/1910, pp. 12–36.
Ripoli, M., 2002. Introduzione. L’estremismo di Jerome Frank. In: S. Castignone, C. Faralli and M. Ripoli, eds., Il diritto come profezia. Il realismo americano: antologia di scritti. Turin: Giappichelli.
Ronsin, X., and Lampos, V., 2018. In-Depth Study on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Justice Systems, namely Applications of AI to the Processing of Judicial Decisions and Data. In: CEPEJ, ed., European Ethical Charter on the Use of AI in Justice Systems [online], Appendix, 13–62. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c
Rossi, P., 2017. Razionalismo occidentale e calcolabilità giuridica. In: A. Carleo, ed., Calcolabilità giuridica. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Roth, A., 2016. Trial by Machine. Georgetown Law Journal [online], 104/2016, pp. 2–48. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2743800
Russell, S.J., and Norvig, P., 2010. Artificial intelligence a modern approach. London: Prentice Hall.
Sartor, G., 2012. L’informatica giuridica e le tecnologie dell’informazione. Corso di informatica giuridica. Turin: Giappichelli.
Searle, J.R., 1980. Minds, Brains and Programs. The behavioral and Brain science [online], 3(3), pp. 417–457. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00005756
Susskind, R., 2019. Online Courts and the Future of Justice [online]. Oxford University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198838364.001.0001
Tarello, G., 1980. L’interpretazione della legge. In: A. Cicu and F. Messineo, eds., Trattato di diritto civile e commerciale. Milan: Giuffré.
Tuzet, G., 2020. L’algoritmo come pastore del giudice? Diritto, tecnologie, prova scientifica. MediaLaws [online], 1/2020. Available at: http://www.medialaws.eu/rivista/lalgoritmo-come-pastore-del-giudice-diritto-tecnologie-prova-scientifica/
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases. Science [online], vol. 185, pp. 1124–1131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Weber, M., 1978. Economy and Law. Berkeley: University of California Press.
White, M., 1956. La rivolta contro il formalismo. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Francesca Ceresa Gastaldo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Sortuz: Oñati Journal of Emergent Socio-Legal Studies provides immediate open access to all its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
All articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and publishing rights are held by the authors of the articles. We do, however, kindly ask for later publications to indicate Sortuz as the original source.
