COURTGPT – CAN COURTROOMS BE REPLACED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE?

INTRODUCTION: 

     Traditional courtrooms rely on human Judges while AI-enabled courtrooms are gaining traction for their speed and efficiency. This page will investigate whether AI is sufficiently advanced to take on roles traditionally performed by judges, lawyers, and other legal professionals, or if such a complete replacement raises significant ethical and practical concerns.

COURTROOMS WITHOUT AI:

     A Courtroom, without the involvement of AI, functions through human adjudication. The presiding judge exercises judicial discretion and precedents to ensure that justice is administered in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Counsel for the parties engage in advocacy, presenting oral arguments and evidences to establish their client’s case.

AI – ENABLED COURTROOMS:

     With its speed, efficiency and sometimes even accuracy, AI can process thousands of cases simultaneously, cutting down backlogs. AI transcription services can listen to spoken words and translate them into text in real time. One of the major obstacles in court proceedings is the language barrier which can be completely resolved by AI. This shows us the importance of courtrooms with AI. 

     As generative AI (Gen AI) continues to shape digital spaces and decision-making systems, UNESCO has launched a new Red Teaming Playbook to equip organizations, policymakers, and civil society with tools to test AI for harmful biases, especially those impacting women and  girls. Vocal traits affect perception, according to studies like UNESCO's report on gendered AI. Mismatches in AI-translated voices, such as accent or gender, could skew juries and increase the possibility of injustices in court.

     "By providing organizations with this easy-to-use tool... participants can systematically evaluate how Gen AI models may perpetuate, either intentionally or unintentionally, stereotypes or enable gender-based violence." Stated by UNESCO.

INTERPRETATION OF AI IN JUSTICE:

     AI can assist courts by analyzing data, predicting case outcomes, and streamlining processes, but it doesn't "interpret" in the same way a human judge does. AI models can analyze historical case data to predict potential outcomes, helping judges and lawyers assess the strength of a case and develop strategies. There are likely to be three potential levels of AI use in the Judicial function from the most basic judge assist, to Judge support, to full AI Judge with no human intervention. AI could process vast amounts of legal data and case files in a fraction of the time, potentially tackling the huge backlogs plaguing many justice systems worldwide.

COMPLICATIONS IN AI COURTROOMS:

     A Judge's role requires understanding the emotional components of a case and showing compassion, traits that AI cannot replicate. It analyses historical data and identifies patterns, but it doesn't reason or question. It doesn't pause to consider whether an outcome is Just. It is a well-known fact that people take comfort from having a human face than seeing a virtual board. It is doubtful whether AI will achieve that cathartic role that human justice does. 

      AI is not completely reliable as it just reflects the information fed into it by humans and not the actual morality and Justice we need. AI cannot interpret court decisions in the way a human Judge does because legal interpretation requires more than mechanical rule application. For submitting fictitious court citations produced by ChatGPT in an inmate lawsuit, three Alabama lawyers were expelled and subject to sanctions. They acknowledged that they had not checked the sources of the AI. This case serves as a cautionary tale about the careless use of AI in court documents.

     Also, Utah lawyer Richard Bednar was sanctioned for citing a non-existent case generated by ChatGPT. The court held him responsible for failing to verify citations. Similar incidents across jurisdictions highlight the growing problem of fabricated precedents caused by unverified AI-generated research.

ROLE OF HUMAN IN AI-COURTROOMS:

     An element of human oversight and verification of accuracy and fairness must be present about whatever is being AI-created. Sometimes humans would review outputs from AI to catch errors or biases, if any, in these AI systems. The human touch must remain there for the emotional quotient, appreciation of nuance, awareness of shock value in some closure, and the ethical dimensions of Justice.

     With Higher Burstiness and Lower Perplexity, AI must serve; Humans must lead; and ethics remain in human hands.

CONCLUSION:

     “The essence of justice often involved ethical considerations, empathy and contextual understanding, the elements that remained beyond the reach of algorithms.” Stated by the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai.

     While AI can be a powerful tool for assisting judges with tasks like legal research, analysis, and case management, it cannot replace the fundamental role of a human judge in the courtroom. Human Judgment, empathy, and ethical reasoning are critical elements of fair and Just legal aspects that AI simply cannot replicate