Technology and the Judicial Role

Zalnieriute, Monika; Bell, Felicity

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3492868

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been extensive discussions on the implications of using automated procedures in the judicial process. These include aspects such as transparency and accountability, judicial independence, equality before the law, diversity, right to a fair trial, and efficiency (Matacic 2018 ; Zalnieriute and Bell 2019 ; Morison and Harkens 2019 ; Wang 2020 ; English et al 2021 ). In particular, a salient concern for using technologies by judges is unfairness, e.g., algorithms can generate discriminatory outcomes based on race, ethnicity, or age (e.g., Jordan and Bowman 2022 ; Köchling and Wehner 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated?

Barysė

Sarel

2023

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Artificial intelligence plays an increasingly important role in legal disputes, influencing not only the reality outside the court but also the judicial decision-making process itself. While it is clear why judges may generally benefit from technology as a tool for reducing effort costs or increasing accuracy, the presence of technology in the judicial process may also affect the public perception of the courts. In particular, if individuals are averse to adjudication that involves a high degree of automation, particularly given fairness concerns, then judicial technology may yield lower benefits than expected. However, the degree of aversion may well depend on how technology is used, i.e., on the timing and strength of judicial reliance on algorithms. Using an exploratory survey, we investigate whether the stage in which judges turn to algorithms for assistance matters for individual beliefs about the fairness of case outcomes. Specifically, we elicit beliefs about the use of algorithms in four different stages of adjudication: (i) information acquisition, (ii) information analysis, (iii) decision selection, and (iv) decision implementation. Our analysis indicates that individuals generally perceive the use of algorithms as fairer in the information acquisition stage than in other stages. However, individuals with a legal profession also perceive automation in the decision implementation stage as less fair compared to other individuals. Our findings, hence, suggest that individuals do care about how and when algorithms are used in the courts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated?

Barysė

Sarel

2023

Artif Intell Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted by Zalnieriute and Bell, the automation of procedural steps is quite different to automating a substantive decision, thus demanding 'a nuanced approach' to the use of technology in judicial decision making. 99 Tan explains that the degree of automation employed may vary from 'decision-support' to 'human-in-the-loop' processes, and even to the total removal of humans from the decision-making process (see also discussion of 'human-on-the-loop' processes in Chapter 9). 100 Zalnieriute and Bell distinguish between two waves of AI which can be applied to judicial decision making.…”

Section: Introduction To Judge Aimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These techniques, as previously noted, enable systems to 'learn' from data in order to draw inferences about new situations. 101 Judge AI inevitably raises questions relating to ethics and the core values that are relevant in terms of the meaning of justice. Formulating broad ethical frameworks and also articulating the objectives of the justice system can assist in evaluating and determining to what extent technological developments could or should be pursued (see Chapter 9).…”

Section: Introduction To Judge Aimentioning

confidence: 99%