Inkaro Efekto Pasireiškimas Skiriant Laisvės Atėmimo Bausmę

Petkevičiūtė-Barysienė, Dovilė; Valickas, Gintautas; Justickis, Viktoras

doi:10.7220/1941-7233.11.7

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Legal doctrine states that a syllogistic approach in cases is necessary in order to protect legal certainty and stability and to ensure the principle of the rule of law. 21 It is obvious that such regulation expresses respect for the legislative body and encourages the presumption of reliability and validity of the norms developed by the legislator. It also creates more legal certainty and predictability, as the conformity of court decisions with legal norms is visible.…”

Section: Syllogisms As a Way To Resolve Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can We Make All Legal Norms into Legal Syllogisms and Why is That Important in Times of Artificial Intelligence?

Strikaitė-Latušinskaja¹

2021

AJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The term ‘hard cases’ trace back to Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart who was one of the first legal philosophers who directly used it in his works and Ronald Myles Dworkin to whom the development and establishment of this concept in legal language is linked. Even though these two legal philosophers in one of the most famous - The Hart–Dworkin – legal debate couldn’t agree on certain things, they both agreed that when dealing with hard cases, there is a need to act creatively in order to resolve such a case properly. The division of cases into easy ones and hard ones gradually lost its popularity, even in legal theory, but perhaps it can be resurrected and used these challenging times to help meet the challenges prompted by technology? Methods: This paper analyses the dichotomy of hard and easy cases as well as circumstances relating to the courts’ decision-making processes in such cases. The essay examines whether the solutions proposed by legal positivism (such as applying syllogisms and precedents) are sufficient to deal with easy cases. The paper also examines what factors analysed by legal realists have an impact on judges while making decisions in hard cases (for example, psychological factors, such as hindsight bias, intuition, hunches, the anchor effect, laziness, unwillingness to take responsibility, or the gambler’s fallacy, as well as social factors, like upbringing, life experience, social relations, gender, age, education, etc.). Given that the article is theoretical in nature, logical, systemic, teleological methods dominate. Both descriptive method and scientific research method were used as well. Results and Conclusions: The author concludes that easy cases should eventually be delegated to artificial intelligence to resolve, whereas hard cases will remain in the competence of human judges, at least until technological development reaches a certain level.

show abstract

Section: Syllogisms As a Way To Resolve Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can We Make All Legal Norms into Legal Syllogisms and Why is That Important in Times of Artificial Intelligence?

Strikaitė-Latušinskaja¹

2021

AJEE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Inkaro Efekto Pasireiškimas Skiriant Laisvės Atėmimo Bausmę

Cited by 1 publication

References 27 publications

Can We Make All Legal Norms into Legal Syllogisms and Why is That Important in Times of Artificial Intelligence?

Can We Make All Legal Norms into Legal Syllogisms and Why is That Important in Times of Artificial Intelligence?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About