Artificial Intelligence Should Not Replace Judges.
In an era where the world’s general development is greatly influenced by science, technology works to either support, replace or disrupt human activity. Artificial intelligence as a result of technological innovations though at its infancy stage, it is incorporated into various sectors of a nation’s governance. Its incorporation into the judiciary, however, raises questions of credibility, judicial independence and its locus standi as per the rule of law. Debates as whether judges should be replaced by AI in decision making is a fallacy that seeks to be debunked as AI is a formatted rigid system unlike judges, who are flexible and put many factors into consideration to ensure fairness in the administration of justice.
The rule of law ensures supremacy of the law, equality before the law as well as legal transparency, and AI is not at per with that. The rule of law also postulates that laws that are unfair and unjust should not be enforced. This leads to Justice Perry posing questions such as who makes a decision and as such who possesses the legal authority to make decisions: whether it is the human decision maker, the computer programmer or the automated system itself (Tania). The response is provided for in The Therapeutic Goods Act as such that a decision made by a computer is assumed to have been made by the secretary (Tania). How the assumption would fair in court proceedings is quite predictable as such the secretary has no legal discretion to make a decision thus deeming it null. As such, AI has no legal obligation to stand in place of judges as it is not only inconsistent with the rule of law but it also interferes with the independence of the judiciary.
For the judiciary to effectively function, it has to be independent from improper influence of other institutions and branches of governance. According to World’s Government Summit, China has already more than 100 robots in courts all over the country (Harris). The robots however, perceive a formal structure of operation hence does not address matters ambiguity and vagueness of legal language. Judges on the other hand ensure understanding and interpretation of legalese for effective justice delivery. Independence of the judiciary ensures judge’s activism in the law. The AI however, by taking judge’s place of decision making seeks to restrain a judge’s voice in the litigation process thus its incorporation into the judiciary not only tampers with judge’s voice but it’s also questions as to its credibility are unanswered.
As though AI is to be fully incorporated into the judiciary system, questions as to its credibility are yet to be convincing. Jennifer Canon reports that there are serious trust issues with regard ethics, biasness associated with AI and that only 9% is very comfortable with businesses using AI (Jennifer). Furthermore, for AI to be trusted, it should be founded on ethics and it should respect fundamental rights (Sofia). Following the mistrusts of technology, people question AI’s accuracy and as such they would prefer physical open courts and physical judges to decide over cases. The AI therefore, cannot replace judges as it lacks credibility.
As per the preceding, AI should not replace judges as it lacks legal authority, it disrupts administration of justice and lacks accuracy due to mistrusts. Furthermore, the administration of justice has to be flexible and not be an automated fixed system to ensure effectiveness of justice delivery. With the above mentioned implemented, incorporation of AI should seek to inform people about the role of judges as opposed to replacing them as well as support and advice people on matters judiciary.
Work cited
Harris Briony. “Articles”. World Government Summit-Articles,2018, https://www.worldgovernmentsummit.org/observer/articles/could-an-ai-ever-replace-a-judge-in-court. Accessed April 5 2020.
Jennifer Cannon. “Report shows consumers don’t trust artificial intelligence.” Fintech News, 2019, https://www.fintechnews.org/report-shows-consumers-dont-trust-artificial-intelligence/. Accessed April 5 2020.
Sofia Bulgaria. Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Ruling,2019. Available online: www.ejtn.eu. Accessed April 5 2020.
Tania Sourdin. Judge v Robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision, 2020. www.unswlawjournal.unsw.edu.au. Accessed April 5 2020.