The application of artificial intelligence (hereinafter: AI) is rapidly influencing and transforming several fields of our society, such as science, business, and even medicine (Pannu, 2015). As enthusiasts are continuously experimenting with new ways to create value, several opportunities in other industries are yet to be discovered. Speculations arise about AI entering one of the most emotionally sensitive workplaces in our society: the courtroom. Since the legal industry is filled with large amounts of data and huge textual files, there seems to be a lot of opportunity for improvement through AI. However, legal experts seem somewhat reserved: would introducing AI into the courtroom be a threat to the justice system, or an opportunity to improve it?
AI-driven judges …
Our current justice system contains several limitations, for example with reference to jurisdiction, which is the process of a court coming to a judgment in a disputed matter. A seemingly unlimited and growing amount of data, large files, and relevant case law cause this process to be inefficient, time-consuming, and subjective (Elstgeest, 2020). One might think that a possible solution to these problems would be the introduction of AI-driven judges and having them replace human judges. AI-driven judges could provide fast data-driven assessments of disputes, and therefore could be more accurate and objective in their decision-making than human judges (McKay, 2020). However, a large share of organisations and individuals involved in jurisdiction seem to put up a lot of resistance against this idea, as they fear that AI will eventually take over control and don’t trust algorithms to make human, ethically responsible decisions (Elstgeest, 2020). All in all, they believe that AI-driven judges might cause more harm to the right to a fair trial, one of the fundamental principles of our justice system, than they would do good.
… or other applications?
Because of the previously mentioned objections, introducing AI-driven judges might not be the right solution to improve the limitations of the current justice system. However, this does not mean that there is no place at all for AI in the courtroom at this moment. For example, by assisting judges, lawyers, and district attorneys in discovering patterns in data and selecting relevant case law, AI can prove to be a relevant and useful tool in increasing efficiency and speed in the courtroom (Elstgeest, 2020). While exploring AI-related opportunities, clear ethical guidelines should be set out, decision-making should be clear and explainable to human rationale, and AI-tools should be monitored and updated frequently (Elstgeest, 2020). In that case, AI can benefit the right to a fair trial, and therefore improve the justice system as a whole.
References
Elstgeest, M., 2020. AI biedt kansen in de rechtspraak. [online] ibestuur.nl. Available at: <https://ibestuur.nl/podium/ai-biedt-kansen-in-de-rechtspraak> [Accessed 5 October 2021].
McKay, C., 2020. Predicting risk in criminal procedure: actuarial tools, algorithms, AI and judicial decision-making. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 32(1), pp.22-39.
Pannu, A., 2015. Artificial intelligence and its application in different areas. Artificial Intelligence, 4(10), pp.79-84.
Hi Tessa,
Definitely agree with the fact that the use of artificial intelligence could improve the justice system that is currently in place. Due to COVID-19, the waiting times for people to be brought to trail has really gotten out of control. So, especially in regard to efficiency and discovering hidden patterns, the potential of AI would be really beneficial to the industry. Less employees of firms are needed to represent a case. However, I do agree with the concerns raised on AI-driven judges. I believe that most people who commit crimes almost always act based on emotions thus having a judge that is incapable of feeling these emotions seems not ideal. Also, even if the same crime is committed, e.g., first degree murder, I believe the sentencing should not automatically be the same. The reasoning why is of crucial importance when deciding the justified sentencing. I do think that AI has the potential to become very human-like and become more objective than people, but at the end of the day people are still in charge of AI systems. If ulterior motives are implemented in the beginning phase of the development of such AI judges, it will be counterproductive.
Hey Tessa,
Insightful post! I wasn’t aware that AI even was a thing in the courtroom. By now, it is a well-known fact that AI is mainly used to improve efficiency in operations. Therefore, I also believe that AI in the courtroom will make a strong contribution to this. However, the AI-driven judge will deal with sensitive data during cases, so I am curious to what extent such an AI-driven judge will comply with the GDPR or other legislation on the use of personal data, for example. Finally, it remains a technology behind a system, so it will necessarily need robust data security where the data is stored. Obviously, as a court or any other involved party, you wouldn’t want information to be leaked because of a data breach in the AI-driven judge’s system.
I also agree with Anne Teeuwen that emotion will play a role during court, so to what extent can an AI-driven judge anticipate to the emotional aspect within court proceedings? Personally, I would not feel comfortable in a courtroom with an AI-powered judge present. I prefer to keep it person-to-person, where emotion is a two-way flow.
Ishwar