Public and private organizations are increasingly implementing various algorithmic decision-making systems. Through legal and practical incentives, humans will often need to be kept in the loop of such decision-making to maintain human agency and accountability, provide legal safeguards, or perform quality control. Introducing such human oversight results in various forms of semi-automated, or hybrid decision-makingwhere algorithmic and human agents interact. Building on previous research we illustrate the legal dependencies forming an impetus for hybrid decision-making in the policing, social welfare, and online moderation contexts. We highlight the further need to situate hybrid decision-making in a wider legal environment of data protection, constitutional and administrative legal principles, as well as the need for contextual analysis of such principles. Finally, we outline a research agenda to capture contextual legal dependencies of hybrid decision-making, pointing to the need to go beyond legal doctrinal studies by adopting socio-technical perspectives and empirical studies.

No abstract

This article illustrates, through a combination of administrative and legal perspectives, how ambitions to centralise prioritisation decisions within a police organisation can be limited by the legal rules relating to crime investigations and public order policing. As a case study, we use the centralisation of the Swedish Police, a reform intending to reduce the previously far-reaching operational independence of regional police authorities in favour of a centralised and uniform single authority. Through this case study, we analyse the interaction between the legal and institutional frameworks of policing and prosecution, including positive obligations enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. We conclude that legal responsibilities affecting the Swedish Police may significantly limit the possibility for managers and officers to de-prioritise many cases and public order concerns, which, in turn, may limit the ability to divert resources to other-centrally prioritised-tasks. Failure to account for such limits may cause reform ambitions to collide with legal responsibilities in day-to-day operative policing. The results indicate that research into organisational reform and police prioritisation may benefit from a more systemic analysis of the legal and institutional factors limiting institutional discretion.

No abstract

No abstract