The use of artificial intelligence applications in predictive justice – advantages and risks: A comparative analytical legal study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59759/law.v5i2.1919Keywords:
Predictive justice, automation of litigation procedures, artificial intelligence, risk forecastingAbstract
Today, the world is preoccupied with artificial intelligence, and its advocates support its use in various areas of life, including the judicial field, whether through automating judicial procedures, or by operating smart applications that are used within the framework of what are known as predictive justice. Therefore, reaching legal solutions to the main problem on which this study is based is embodied in the legitimacy of replacing many aspects of human judicial activities, and digitizing the procedures associated with the legal litigation system, which will be supported by technologies related to artificial intelligence requirements. This requires us to analyze the impact of artificial intelligence technologies on justice systems, and the problems related to the use of artificial intelligence applications in the justice system, and how artificial intelligence applications can support the work of judges, while we can overcome the main threats to traditional justice values, which are produced by Predictive within the framework of developing the work of the judicial system.
Downloads
References
A. Završnik, Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights, ERA Forum 20 (2020) 567–583. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/S12027-020-00602-0. doi:10.1007/ S12027- 020- 00602- 0.
A.D. Reiling, Technology for Justice, how information technology can support judicial reform (diss. VU Amsterdam) Leiden: Leiden University Press 2009, p. 111-122.
Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preoţiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V. 2016. ‘Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a Natural Language Processing perspective’, PeerJ Computer Science 2:e93 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93.
Alex Pentland, ‘A Perspective on Legal Algorithms’, MIT Computational Law Report 6 December 2019.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Technology: what is means by federal dispute resolution, n.23, 1993.
AW Diamond, ‘The Right to Predictable Justice’ (2022) 102 Iowa Law Review 917.
British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (2019), The Civil Resolution Tribunal, <https://civilresolutionbc.ca.
C. Shi, T. Sourdin, B. Li, The smart court – a new pathway to justice in china?, International Journal for Court Administration 12 (2021) 1–19. URL: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.367. doi:10.36745/ijca.367.
Cinara Rocha, João Carvalho, Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary: Uses and Threats, Algoritmi Centre, Univesity of Minho, Portugal, © 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). CEUR, Workshop Proceedings http://ceur-ws.org, ISSN 1613-0073 CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
Council of Europe - European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European judicial systems cepej, 2020. URL: https://rm.coe.int/evaluation-report-part-1-english/ 16809fc058.
Council of State advice of September 6 2018, Staatscourant (Official Gazette) -2018-50999.
D. Ardia, Privacy and court records: Online access and the loss of practical obscurity,
D. ASKER, Online dispute- the future for Civil Claims’ April 2015.
D. Berman, C. Hafner, The Potential of Artificial Intelligence to Help Solve the Crisis in Our Legal System, Social Aspects of Computing, 1989.
D. Kahnemann, Thinking, fast and slow, London: Penguin, 2011.
D. KEHL, P. GUO, S. KESSLER, Algorithms In the criminal justice systems: assessing the use of risk assessment in sentencing, 1, July 2017.
D.L DALKE, Can Computer Replace Lawyers, Mediators and Judges?, in The Advocate, 1, 2013.
Dory Reiling: Courts and Artificial Intelligence, 11(2) International Journal for Court Administration 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca. 343 , 10 Pages Posted: 25 Nov 2020
E. Troulinos, The prospects of artificial intelligence in a court information system, CEUR, Workshop Proceedings 2844 (2020) 119–122.
EJ Kim, ‘Ethical Considerations in Artificial Intelligence Governance’ (2020) 6 International Journal of Management Science and Business Administration 50.
EnaJus, The challenges of justice by artificial intelligence [video, 2021. URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMC-5NYJLjA&t=2510s.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European ethical charter on the use of artificial intelligence in judicial systems and their environment, 2018.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial systems and their environment. Strasbourg, Council of Europe 2019.
F Dadgostari & others, ‘Modeling Law Search as Prediction’ (2021) 29 Artif Intell Law 3.
F. Lederer, Technologically augmented litigation—systemic revolution, Information and Communications Technology Law 5 (1996) 215–225. URL: ttps://doi.org/10.1080/13600834. 1996.9965746. doi:10.1080/13600834.1996.9965746.
F. RASO, H. HILLIGOSS, V. KRISHNAMURTHY, C. BAVITZ, L. KIM, Artificial intelligence and Human rights, 1, September 25, 2018.
FUSO JOVIA BOAHEMAA, The impact of Artificial Intelligence on justice systems,Jean Monnet, European Centre, university of Trento, PAPER N. 25, a. a. 2018/2019.
GE Marchant, ‘Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Legal Practice’ (2017) 14 ABA SciTech Lawyer 21.
GULYAMOV SAID SAIDAKHRAROVICH, AUTOMATING THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM: EMBRACING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, FOR TRANSPARENCY AND EFFICIENCYm Professor and Head of the Department of Cyber Law, Tashkent State University of Law; Chairman of the Council of Young Scientists of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Uzbekistan. E- Book 2023.
H. Liu, C. Lin, Y. Chen, Beyond state v loomis: Artificial intelligence, government algorithmization and accountability, International Journal of Law and Information Technology 27 (2019) 122–141. URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eaz001. doi:10.1093/ijlit/eaz001.
H. Prakken. ‘Komt de robotrechter eraan (Is the robot judge arriving?)?’ Nederlands Juristenblad 2018-04 no. 207.
J Stanton, ‘The Limits of Law’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring edn, 2022) <https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/law-limits/> accessed 12 June 2023.
J. J. Kaplan (red.) Artificial Intelligence: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
J. Kaplan (red.) Artificial Intelligence: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2016.
J. Thornton, Cost, accuracy, and subjective fairness in legal information technology: A response to technological due process critics, New York University Law Review 91 (2016) 1821.
J. Yu, J. Xia, E-justice evaluation factors: The case of smart court of china, nformation Development 10 (2020). URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920967387.doi:10.1177/0266666920967387
J. Yu, J. Xia, E-justice evaluation factors: The case of smart court of china, Information Development 10 (2020). URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666920967387. doi:10.1177/ 0266666920967387.
Katz, Daniel Martin et al. A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States (January 16, 2017). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2463244 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2463244.
Kirkpatrick, Keith (January 23, 2017). "It's not the algorithm, it's the data". Communications of the ACM. 60 (2): 21–23. doi:10.1145/3022181. S2CID 33993859.
L. Julia. L’intelligence artificielle n’existe pas (AI does not exist). First Edition, Paris 2019.
Larson, Jeff, Surya Mattu, Lauren Kirchner, and Julia Angwin. 2016. “How We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm.” ProPublica (blog). May 23, 2016. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm.
M. Guo, Internet court’s challenges and future in china, Computer Law and Security Review 40 (2021) 105522. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105522. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105522
M. van der Put, ‘Kan artificiële intelligentie de rechtspraak betoveren (Can AI bewitch the courts)?’ Rechtstreeks 2019-02. p. 50-60.
N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016) en 137 S.Ct. 2290 (2017).
P. Branco, N. Hosen, M. Leone and R. Mohr (eds), Tools of Meaning: Representation, Objects, and Agency in the Technologies of Law and Religion, I Saggi di Lexia, Aracne, Rome 2018.
R. Fogliato, A. Xiang, Z. Lipton, D. Nagin, A. Chouldechova, On the validity of arrest as a proxy for offense: Race and the likelihood of arrest for violent crimes, in: AIES 2021 - Proceedings of the 2021 AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, 2021.
R. Yulia, R. Sergiy, Justice in the digital age: Technological solutions, hidden threats and enticing opportunities, Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 4 (2021) 104–117. URL: https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.2-A000061. doi:10.33327/AJEE- 18- 4.2- A000061.
S. Shalev-Shwartz, S. Ben-David, Understanding Machine Learning, Cambridge Univesity Press, 2014.
T. SOURDIN, Judge vs Robot? Artificial Intelligence and judicial decision- making, 41, 2018.
T.J. BUOCZ, Artificial intelligence in Court, legitimacy Problems Of AI Assistance in the Judiciary, 2, 1, Spring 2018.
V Mayer-Schönberger and T Cukier, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think (Mariner Books 2021.
Wexler, Rebecca (June 13, 2017). "Opinion | When a Computer Program Keeps You in Jail". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 18, 2017.
Z. Wu, B. Singh, L. Davis, V. Subrahmanian, Deception detection in videos, 2017. URL: www.aaai.org
