JUSTICE ON AUTOPILOT: IS THERE A Ctrl + Z?

Introduction:

Not long ago, I would’ve laughed at the thought. But recently, I have found myself consulting AI for decision making. AI has become an integral part of my life, ranging from the simple, like choosing a lipstick shade to critical problem solving, which leads to the question I thought I would never take seriously: Can the courtrooms be replaced by AI? The integration of AI into courtrooms is no longer science fiction, but a pressing reality. This article argues that while AI can be powerful, its role must be limited to tasks due to the irreplaceable human elements like empathy and morality.

AI’s Potential:

Post the pandemic, the use of technology has grown within the court system, for example with ODR.^[1] This is not unthinkable. Would a neutral AI decision-maker be better (or worse) than judges? AI can increase efficiency, backlog, analyze vast amounts of case laws and remove human bias. AI driven judicial decision making could make justice more accessible to the large segments of society that cannot afford human lawyers. AI creates unique opportunities for innovation that arise from the pace of technological change.^[2]

Blind Spot: AI lacks empathy:

Nevertheless, the use of AI poses a wide range of challenges to be addressed: From ethics, lack of transparency in AI decisions to the lack of empathy in the judgements. The main concerns with AI playing a central role in court is that it impinges on the fundamentals of justice such as procedural fairness, and impartiality. “A black box ^[3]form of AI should never be permitted in the court system because it fails to comply with the core concerns. There is a debate about ethics in AI. But for the justice system, there is no debate,” Prof. Legg says. Human judges act with discretion and humanity. AI’s lack of humanity means that it will never be capable of making decisions. The example of King Solomon and the baby^[4]is a very strong example. Two women bring a baby to the King, both claiming to be the child’s mother. The king declares that the baby be cut in half. One woman immediately says the other woman to take the baby to spare it coming to harm. King Solomon understood the first woman was the mother. Would an AI judge just have seen an equitable division of assets? Reducing cost and delay is important, but not at the expense of the core requirements of justice.

Conclusion:

The integration of AI in litigation is not a small undertaking. It requires planning and a clear execution roadmap. In order to make a balanced decision, consideration needs to be given to the potential benefits. AI is best suited for legal research, reviewing documents, and predicting outcomes for lawyers, but should never be used for final verdicts as it lacks empathy and compassion. The question is not if we will use AI in law, but how we will find a balanced approach to use it to ensure justice, and not replace it entirely.

Reference:

1. Hazel Stevenson, Should AI replace judges in our courts? Available at: <https://ials.sas.ac.uk/blog/should-ai-replace-judges-our-courts>

2. Artificial Intelligence in Victoria’s Courts and Tribunals: Consultation Paper available at: <https://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/publication/artificial-intelligence-in-victorias-courts-and-tribunals-consultation-paper/3-benefits-and-risks-of-ai/ >

3. Dawn Lo, Can AI replace a judge in the courtroom? Available at : <https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2021/10/can-ai-replace-judge-courtroom>