Artificial Intelligence and judiciary: on the dichotomy between assistance and replacement. Technical and environmental aspects

Article Sidebar

PDF (Castellano) ePUB (Castellano)

Main Article Content

Sebastian Rivero Silva
Rivero & Gustafson Abogados
David Chinarro Vadillo
San Jorge University

This article explores the use of artificial intelligence systems in the judicial field, examining the main doctrinal opinions and the positions adopted by various countries. It highlights the role of the European Union, which is particularly receptive to the study of artificial intelligence in public administration. The technical and environmental issues accompanying the implementation of these systems in justice are addressed, including the state’s obligation to guarantee effective judicial protection and the difficulties inherent in replicating the personal and professional qualities of the human judge. Two paradigmatic approaches are also analysed: the judicial substitution model applied in China through the “Smart Courts” and the assistive model used in the United States with the COMPAS algorithm, which assists judges in making jurisdictional decisions, especially about deprivation of liberty. We also highlight the need for a multidisciplinary approach in adopting artificial intelligence in the judicial system, considering not only the technical advances but also the environmental implications to ensure a responsible and sustainable implementation.

Keywords
artificial intelligence (AI), digital judge, legal system, smart court, COMPAS

Article Details

How to Cite
Rivero Silva, Sebastian; and Chinarro Vadillo, David. “Artificial Intelligence and judiciary: on the dichotomy between assistance and replacement. Technical and environmental aspects”. IDP. Internet, Law and Politics E-Journal, no. 41, pp. 1-12, doi:10.7238/idp.v0i41.426865.
Rights
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 3.0 Unported License.

(c) Sebastian Rivero Silva, David Chinarro Vadillo, 2024


Copyright

Contents published in IDP are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 Spain licence, the full text of which can be consulted on http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/es/deed.en.

Thus, they may be copied, distributed and broadcast provided that the author and IDP are cited, as shown in the recommended citation that accompanies each article. Derivative works are not permitted.

Authors are responsible for obtaining the necessary permission to use copyrighted images.

 

Assignment of intellectual property rights

The author non exclusively transfers the rights to use (reproduce, distribute, publicly broadcast or transform) and market the work, in full or part, to the journal’s editors in all present and future formats and modalities, in all languages, for the lifetime of the work and worldwide.

The author must declare that he is the original author of the work. The editors shall thus not be held responsible for any obligation or legal action that may derive from the work submitted in terms of violation of third parties’ rights, whether intellectual property, trade secret or any other right.

Author Biographies

Sebastian Rivero Silva, Rivero & Gustafson Abogados

Exercising lawyer authorized to practice law in Spain, PhD student at San Jorge University, within the line of research on global change and sustainable development. He was an advisor to the Permanent Mission of Spain in the United Nations and currently carries out his professional activity as an Attorney at Rivero & Gustafson Attorneys. In teaching, he is a collaborating professor of Civil and Commercial Law with a degree in Law from ESERP Business & Law School, assigned to Juan Carlos I University and in the MBA Master’s Degree from the Business School of the Miguel de Cervantes European University. 

To date, he has published three articles in academic journals within the justice field. He is the author of the monograph El Derecho Mercantil del Espacio Exterior, published by the Editorial Universitas. Likewise, he is part of the UNIDROIT Convention team on cultural goods stolen or exported illegally ratified by Spain and managed by the Unidroit Institute, and also collaborated as a guest specialist in the project Subnational Indicators of Justice, Governance, and Rule of Law in the Union, developed by the World Justice Project in collaboration with the European Union.

David Chinarro Vadillo, San Jorge University

Doctor in Computer Science and Systems Engineering from the University of Zaragoza. He was Vice Dean of Research at the School of Engineering and Architecture at San Jorge University (USJ), leading numerous international projects. He is currently a research collaborator at USJ in Data Science training, thesis addresses and TFM of the master degree in Education and a consultant at the Ministry of Defence on disruptive technologies and applied artificial intelligence. Among its 45 publications, in the field of humanities he is interested in quantitative and qualitative mixed models to characterize natural climate variability, its effect on resources and its consistent relationship with migration movements. He was the coordinator of the line of the European project Marie Curie MEDCHANge, in which fifteen universities from Mediterranean countries participated, focused on the analysis and relationships between global intercultural networks, spatial mobility of individuals, their economic and environmental conditions, gender and the study of consequent legislative adaptation. In the field of engineering and data science, his interests are: the predictive models of climate evolution of the century; the symptoms of biological systems of the Ebro basin, the aquifers of the Pyrenees and the glaciers of Antarctica; as well as in multi-agent models for the forecasting of energy consumption and the demand for renewable energy.

References

AINI, G. (2020). «A summary of the research on the judicial application of artificial intelligence». Chinese Studies, vol. 9, n.º 1, pág. 14. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/chnstd.2020.91002

ANDREU, G. R. (2021). «Libro Blanco de la Comisión Europea sobre Inteligencia Artificial. Un enfoque europeo hacia la excelencia y la confianza». Revista Ius et Praxis, vol. 27, n.º 1, págs. 264-270. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-00122021000100264

BARYSÉ, D.; SAREL, R. (2023). «Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated?». Artificial intelligence and law, vol. 32, págs. 1-30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09343-6

BINNS, R. (2020). «Algorithmic Decision-making: A Guide For Lawyers». Judicial Review, vol. 25, n.º 1, págs 2-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10854681.2020.1732739

BORISOVA, L. V. (2020). «E-Justice as a Form of Judicial Protection in Russia». Actual problems of Russian law, vol. 15, n.º 6, pág 105-111. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2020.115.6.105-111

BROOKS, D. (2013). «The Philosophy of Data». The New York Times [en línea]. Disponible en: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/05/opinion/brooksthe-philosophy-of-data.html. [Fecha de consulta: 07/02/2024].

CHEN, E. M. (2003). «The judiciary, diversity, and justice for all». Asian Law Journal, vol. 10, pág. 127. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203361849

COFONE, I. (2021). AI and judicial decision-making. Artificial Intelligence and the Law in Canada: Toronto. Editorial LexisNexis Canada.

CONSEJO GENERAL DE LA ABOGACÍA ESPAÑOLA (2023). «Marchena anima a los abogados a “subirse al tsunami” de la Inteligencia Artificial». Noticias del Consejo General de la Abogacía Española [en línea]. Disponible en: https://www.abogacia.es/actualidad/noticias/marchena-anima-a-los-abogados-a-subirse-al-tsunami-de-la-inteligencia-artificial/. [Fecha de consulta: 07/02/2024].

CROSS, F. B.; LINDQUIST, S. (2008). «Judging the judges». Duke Law Journal, vol. 58, pág. 1383.

DI VITA, G. (2010). «Production of laws and delays in court decisions». International Review of Law and Economics, vol. 30, n.º 3, págs. 276-281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2010.03.006

DONOHUE, M. E. (2018). «A replacement for Justitia’s scales: Machine learning’s role in sentencing». Harv. JL & Tech, vol 32, pág. 657.

FERNOLL, J. N. (2022). «Inteligencia artificial y proceso judicial: perspectivas tras un alto tecnológico en el camino». Revista General de Derecho Procesal, n.º 57, pág 2.

GOODMAN, S. (1982). «Judicial selection and the qualities that make a “good” judge». The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 462, n.º 1, págs. 112-124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716282462001010

GRECO, Candida M.; TAGARELLI, Andrea (2023). «Bringing order into the realm of Transformer-based language models for artificial intelligence and law». Artificial Intelligence and Law, págs. 122-148. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09374-7

HARARI, Y. N. (2016). Homo Deus: A brief history of tomorrow. Madrid. Editorial Debate. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17104/9783406704024

JUST.EE (2022). Estonia Does Not Develop AI Judge. Nota de prensa [en línea]. Disponible en: https://www.just.ee/en/news/estonia-does-not-develop-ai-judge. [Fecha de consulta: 07/02/2024].

KASAP, G. H. (2021). «Can Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) Replace Human Arbitrators? Technological Concerns and Legal Implications». J. Disp. Resol., pág. 209. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/k4g8s

LEHEZA, Y., LEN, V., SHKUTA, O., TITATENKO, O., CHERNIAK, N. (2022). «Foreign experience and international legal standards for the application of artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings». Revista de la Universidad del Zulia, vol. 13, n.º 36, págs. 276-287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.46925//rdluz.36.18

LESLIE, D. (2019). Understanding artificial intelligence ethics and safety. arXiv preprint, págs. 29-35.

MALEK, M. A. (2022). «Criminal courts’ artificial intelligence: the way it reinforces bias and discrimination». AI and Ethics, vol. 2, n.º 1, págs. 233-245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-022-00137-9

MARONEY, T. A. «((What We Talk About When We Talk About) Judicial Temperament)». B.C. Law Review, vol. 61, pág. 2085.

MIKKELSON, H. (1998). «Towards a redefinition of the role of the court interpreter». Interpreting, vol. 3, n.º 1, págs. 21-45. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.3.1.02mik

MILLER, G. P. (2004). «Bad judges». Tex. L. Rev., vol. 83, pág. 431.

MORAN, L. J. (2009). «Researching the irrelevant and the invisible: Sexual diversity in the judiciary». Feminist Theory, vol. 10, n.º 3, págs. 281-294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700109343252

PAGALLO, U.; CIANI SCIOLLA, J.; DURANTE, M. (2022). «The environmental challenges of AI in EU law: lessons learned from the Artificial Intelligence Act (AIA) with its drawbacks». Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, vol. 16, n.º 3, págs. 359-376. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-07-2021-0121

REILING, A. D. (2020). «Courts and artificial intelligence». IJCA, vol. 11, pág. 1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343

RYABTSEVA, E.; KALENTEVA, T.; SHUTEMOVA, T. (2021). «Use of Information Technologies to Prevent Conflicts of Interest in Judicial Activities». Proceedings of the VIII International Scientific and Practical Conference ‘Current problems of social and labour relations’ (ISPC-CPSLR 2020). Atlantis Press. págs. 578-582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.210322.179

SCHUCK, P. (1992). «Legal complexity: Some causes, consequences, and cures». Duke Law Journal, vol. 42, págs. 1-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1372753

SOURDIN, T. (2018). «Judge v Robot?: Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making». University of New South Wales Law Journal, vol. 41, n.º 4, págs. 1114-1133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.53637/ZGUX2213

SOURDIN, T.; CORNES, R. (2018). «Do judges need to be human? The implications of technology for responsive judging». The Responsive Judge: International Perspectives, págs 87-119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_4

SPAJOSEVIC, D. et al. (2020). «Study on the use of innovative technologies in the justice field». European Commission, págs. 48-66.

STEIN, A. L. (2020). «Artificial intelligence and climate change». Yale J. on Reg., vol. 37, pág. 890.

STRUBELL, E.; GANESH, A.; MCCALLUM, A. (2020). «Energy and policy considerations for modern deep learning research». Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 34, nº. 09, págs. 13693-13696. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i09.7123

THURSTON, J. L. (2019). «Black robes, white judges: The lack of diversity on the magistrate judge bench». Law & Contemp. Probs., vol. 82:63 [en línea]. Disponible en: https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4909&context=lcp

TOMÁS Y VALIENTE, F. (1987). «“In dubio pro reo”, libre apreciación de la prueba y presunción de inocencia». Revista Española de Derecho Constitucional, n.º 20, págs. 9-34.

ULENAERS, J. (2020). «The impact of artificial intelligence on the right to a fair trial: Towards a robot judge?». Asian Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 11, n.º 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2020-0008

VALDÉS, B. (2023). «El magistrado Eloy Velasco partidario de introducir al juez robot en pleitos repetitivos de escasa cuantía». Confilegal [en linea]. Disponible en: https://confilegal.com/20230504-el-magistrado-eloy-velasco-partidario-de-introducir-al-juez-robot-en-pleitos-repetitivos-de-escasa-cuantia/# [Fecha de consulta: 07/02/2024].

VASDANI, T. (2020). «Robot justice: China’s use of internet courts». LexisNexis Canada [en línea]. Disponible en: https://www.lexisnexis.ca/en-ca/ihc/2020-02/robot-justice-chinas-use-of-internet-courts.page. [Fecha de consulta: 20/05/2024].

VOIGHT, S. (2016). «Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey». European Journal of Law and Economics, vol. 42, págs. 183-208. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-016-9531-6

WANG, N. (2020). «“Black Box Justice”: Robot Judges and AI-based Judgment Processes in China’s Court System». IEEE International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS), págs. 58-65. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/ISTAS50296.2020.9462216

WASHINGTON, A. L. (2018). «How to argue with an algorithm: Lessons from the COMPAS-ProPublica debate». Colo. Tech. LJ, vol. 17, pág. 131.

WU, T. (2019). «Will artificial intelligence eat the law? The rise of hybrid social-ordering systems». Columbia Law Review, vol. 119, págs. 2001-2028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3492846

XU, Z. (2022). «Human Judges in the era of artificial intelligence: challenges and opportunities». Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol, 36, n.º 1, págs. 1026–1042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.2013652

ZALNIERIUTE, M. (2021). Technology and the Courts: Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Impartiality. Submission to Australian Law Reform Commission Review of Judicial Impartiality, págs. 1-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3867901

ZHENG, G. G. (2020). «China’s grand design of people’s smart courts». Asian Journal of Law and Society, vol 7, n.º 3, págs. 561-582. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.20