The Rise of AI Judges: Legal Implications and Ethical Dilemmas in Algorithmic Decision Making

Introduction

Historically speaking, judicial systems have been slow on the uptake of new technologies. However, the rapid evolution of digital technologies, especially artificial intelligence (AI), is altering the operations of courts. AI is now being utilized in several jurisdictions to not only increase the speed of processes but to also improve access to the legal system. The emergence of automated, or "smart courts," in China for regular matters and AI in Estonia being used to resolve small civil disputes are noteworthy developments. These developments pose serious questions about how robots should interpret laws and enforce them. Will human values, conscience, and moral thinking be adequately incarnated in technology? In this essay, I will explore AI's ability to improve judicial process efficiencies, while also considering ethical and legal implications?

Comprehending AI judges  

Digital tools designed specifically to assist or perform certain judicial functions are called artificial intelligence judges.  They can be anything from analyzing legal documents and proposing recommendations to, sometimes, making decisions on particular legal issues.  They are complex algorithms built through extensive study of statutes, legal texts, case law, and procedures.  Several countries have already begun experimenting with artificial intelligence (AI) in their justice systems, so this is no longer science fiction.

• To reduce delays and reduce human judge workloads, Estonia has started to pilot AI to settle small civil disputes where the amounts in controversy are less than €7,000.

• To address typical situations like online contract disputes and copyright-related disputes, the specialist Internet Courts established in China deploy artificial intelligence technologies, including digital judge avatars. The new computerized technologies are aimed at speeding up rules-based justice activities. 

• The AI-based risk assessment tools like COMPAS are being used to support judicial decision-making in the US and UK. These tools help to assess risk factors in the context of bail and sentencing, but ultimately do not replace a judge in the making of the final decision.

  
  

Legal Fallout

Serious concerns arise from procedural fairness and natural justice principles as a result of the addition of artificial intelligence into the legal system. The use of complicated and opaque algorithms in decision-making from our courts raises serious questions about transparency and the ability to challenge decisions. When a person or party cannot fathom the reasoning for a judicial decision, or comprehend its grounding in a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which requires judicial procedure to be reasonable, fair, and non-arbitrary, then Article 21 risks being compromised. Furthermore, AI programs trained on skewed past data, without an adaptable classification model to outdate their data, may reinforce or exacerbate present discriminatory tendencies which could contravene Article 14, which provides for equality before the law. 

Moral Dilemmas

Courts are consistently exploring ways to help simplify and enhance efficiency in their organization, especially while addressing caseloads. The answers they may need to complex moral dilemmas, nuanced facts and emotional issues present in many cases cannot be accomplished through specific tools and techniques; rather those tools and techniques can help in managing mundane tasks and/or reduce delays. Upholding the obligations of justice requires judges' impartiality, transparency and personal ability to show compassion. Seeking justice involves the appropriate interpretation and application of the law with consideration and compassion, and the primary goal is not just to make decisions quickly. 

Developments in AI and the Judiciary Globally

Across the world, legislatures and the judiciary are beginning to take notice of the challenges they face to provide accountability and fairness when exercising their respective judicial functions. The proposed 2024 EU Framework, addresses the fact that there are judicial actions that are extremely perilous and need to be approached cautiously. The proposed framework elaborates on the importance of preserving justice by adhering to values associated with explainability, transparency, and ultimately human oversight. It aims to limit any abuse from instruments or processes that produce a lack of faith in the legal systems actual integrity. 

Conclusion

New legal tools and technologies are continuously being accepted by modern legal systems, often promoted as ways to ensure equality and speed up the resolution of court disputes. However, no system can wholly understand the particulars of each case, ethical choices, nor address the moral and emotional dilemmas at the core of many legal disputes. Technology can certainly help reduce monotony and improve efficiency, but it should never replace people when decisions are made. Justice needs fairness, transparency, and respect for human dignity - not just efficiency. Strong ethics and professional responsibility are still critical as we integrate these tools into the justice field. In the end, the essential question remains: can we have justice without human judgment?

This article is authored by Ankita Sharma, who was among the Top 40 performers in the Constitution Law Quiz Competition organized by Lets Learn Law.