Re-engineering justice? Robot judges, computerised courts and (semi) automated legal decision-making

Abstract

This paper takes a sceptical look at the possibility of advanced computer technology replacing judges. Looking first at the example of alternative dispute resolution, where considerable progress has been made in developing tools to assist parties to come to agreement, attention then shifts to evaluating a number of other algorithmic instruments in a criminal justice context. The possibility of human judges being fully replaced within the courtroom strictu sensu is examined, and the various elements of the judicial role that need to be reproduced are considered. Drawing upon understandings of the legal process as an essentially socially determined activity, the paper sounds a note of caution about the capacity of algorithmic approaches to ever fully penetrate this socio-legal milieu and reproduce the activity of judging, properly understood. Finally, the possibilities and dangers of semi-automated justice are reviewed. The risks of seeing this approach as avoiding the recognised problems of fully automated decision-making are highlighted, and attention is directed towards the problems that remain when an algorithmic frame of reference is admitted into the human process of judging.

Liberalisation and the Legal Profession in England and Wales

“…There is little evidence that the traditional role of the "lawyer" is headed for extinction anytime soon, being considered among the least likely candidates for mechanisation by AI in future. 99 To date, the legal profession in England and Wales has, depending on one's perspective, either successfully resisted or failed to reap the benefits of the anticipated lawtech revolution. 100 Reticence may, however, prove unviable longer-term.…”

Reconceptualising ‘risk’: Towards a humanistic paradigm of sexual offending

“…5 Algorithmic justice utilises predictive algorithms – with an emphasis on ‘big data’ and correlations through forms of machine-based learning – to produce a new paradigm in knowledge production regarding risk and crime (Christin et al, 2015). One of the supposed plaudits of the epistemological turn to algorithmic risk assessment is that it is scientifically objective or ‘technical neutral’ (O’Malley, 2004: 326) by virtue of ‘(semi) automated decision-making’ (Morison and Harkens, 2019). As part of a broader trend within legal decision-making by police and courts originating in the USA, algorithmic tools are used to inform judgements about ‘risky’ groups, and to underpin resource allocation and the extension of surveillance and control.…”

E-Commerce Dispute Resolution Prediction

“…Although these "algorithm-in-theloop" studies provide tools to assist human agents in legal decision making, they keep the human agent in charge as the final arbiter. This is partially due to algorithmic limitations, and partially due to the desire to keep the normative role of judges in the hands of human decision making, as discussed by Morison and Harkens [25]. Of note is a study by Sela [31] who showed that participants experience more procedural justice when the final arbitrator is human.…”