The number of spheres where Artificial Intelligence successfully substitutes humans’ actions and work is considerably growing and is projected to grow at the same pace in the foreseeable future. I am genuinely impressed by the diversity of these fields. But have you ever thought whether AI could substitute judges in courts and that instead of a person you will see a robot in a courtroom?
To begin with, the application of Artificial Intelligence in the judicial systems is already sufficiently developed in some countries. Automatic information and evidence extraction, prediction of crime occurrence and optimisation in data acquisition are one of the most common AI techniques integrated into judicial policies. However, whether AI application in courts could evolve from assistance into the replacement of humanoid judges is still an open question.
Let’s figure out how the idea of AI-driven adjudication has arisen. There are 2 main issues that have led to the consideration of humanoid judges’ inefficiency. The presence of human bias and discrimination is the first obstacle on the road to the judicial system’s perfection. It is a common situation that personal preconceptions of judges regarding the gender, race or age of the defendant could incline them to a negative court resolution. Another common problem that is widespread among judges is the correlation of personal mood and mental condition with their decision. Very often the final argument of the jury is considerably influenced by his feelings or emotions, which could be the reason for the unfair imprisonment of an innocent person or ,on the contrary, the relief of a dangerous maniac. Of course, a robotic system is not capable of being affected by a bad mood because of a broken nail or a dramatic break-up and neither is it programmed to be dependent on certain prejudices. Even though, now there is an ongoing debate among society’s members whether a robot could take the role of the judge. Although AI systems guarantee greater fairness and the elimination of bias and discrimination in the courts, numerous issues still have to be considered and fixed. The lack of emotional intelligence and accountability and moreover the inability to make unprecedented decisions set significant barriers to the transition of the judicial system to a fully technological one. Many professional data analysts are convinced, that since AI is trained by being programmed to synthesise and analyse the immense inflow of previous cases, it unintentionally processes the bias and prejudice of numerous lawyers who dealt with these cases in the past. Hence, there is no real possibility to get rid of biased decisions in courts since AI is constantly digesting bias and discrimination patterns of humanoid judges.
So, in my opinion, the application of AI in the judicial environment should be emphasised on help and assistance rather than on the total substitution of human beings at the head of the court. Artificial Intelligence could automate and alleviate the work of judges to a large extent by saving them a lot of time and providing them with a greater possibility to concentrate more on the final decision rather than on case details and documentary work. Of course, we could expect the introduction of AI to the judge’s duties, as the presence of bias, discrimination and prejudice are at least minimised there, but before this implementation, bias and discrimination tendencies should be removed from people’s mindsets thus bringing AI judicial systems to perfection.
References:
https://www.ft.com/content/a5709548-03bd-4f65-b9b5-7aa0325c0f6b
Recently I spoke to my friend who studies Law and studied Psychology, and I told her how I hate the unjust Law in Poland. However, she gave me many examples that Polish Law isn’t this bad. On the contrary, it’s pretty good. But Polish courts are broken and filled with self-absorbed people who only seek money or are incredibly biased. For example, suppose there are two attorneys. One wants to close the case as fast as possible for their client. The other wants to prolong the process because that’s the most convenient solution for their client. They get the judge, who doesn’t really like to make sentences; after the first trial, the attorneys shake hands because they already know which one has won. That’s the brutal truth about the Polish system. So maybe AI wouldn’t be this bad? Of course, the problem you mentioned is that the AI would learn from all of the previous trials. But what if this AI learned based on, for example, the Denmarks justice system? Maybe then it could be the unbiased part of every trial?
Seems like a great way to eliminate prejudice. However, it’s most likely suited for romano germanic system rather than case law because of first’s certainty and strictness.
I totally agree with your opinion, I think AI would be a great assistance to judges giving them feedback. I wouldn’t let AI make decisions about the cases however maybe letting it decide on minor cases may be the option. It is hard to accept and trust AI which is why I don’t see it coming in near future.