-
Abstract
Jurisdictions around the world are experimenting with the use of artificially intelligent systems to help them adjudicate cases. With heavily overloaded dockets and cases that go on for years, many courts in the U.S. are eager to follow suit. However, American authorities should be slow to substitute human judges with automated entities. The uniqueness of the U.S. Constitution has demands that artificially intelligent “judges” may not be able to meet, starting with a machine’s lack of what may be called “true intelligence”. Philosopher John Searle wrote about the distinction between true intelligence and artificial intelligence in his famous “Chinese Room” analogy, which is applicable to the discussion of artificial intelligence in the courtroom. Former Navy Reserves officer, robotics engineer, and current patent lawyer Bob Lambrechts analyzed the idea of robots in court in his article, May It Please the Algorithm. Other scholars have started to explore it, too, but the idea of robots as judges remains a vast legal frontier that ought to be excavated thoroughly before it is inhabited by the American legal system.
International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution |
|
Article | Artificial Intelligence in the CourtroomIncreasing or Decreasing Access to Justice? |
Keywords | artificial intelligence, robojudge, separation of powers, algorithm, due proces |
Authors | Analisa Morrison |
DOI | 10.5553/IJODR/235250022020006001008 |
Author's information |
Purchase access
You can purchase online access to this article. You will receive 24 hrs access @ € 17,50 (excl. VAT).
24 hrs access | € 17,50 (excl. VAT) |
Activate your code
If you have an access code, please activate it here.