Artificial Intelligence evolution

Artificial Intelligence evolution

Artificial Intelligence has evolved greatly over time, and many industries are incorporating AI into their functions. The government has not been left behind as it has adopted the technology in different sectors where Artificial Intelligence is used for repetitive tasks and uses algorithms to sort out information when large data is involved. Incorporating AI into the judiciary system, especially to replace judges, would mean leaving the robots to decide the fate of human beings. It is important to establish the different factors affecting the legitimacy of AI replacing judges.

Several countries have adopted the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary system. The US is already using AI in the police force. Through predictive algorithms, they can establish situations where the use of force is needed (Alarie et al. 106). They also use facial recognition technology, which is part of AI and assessment algorithms. The assessment algorithms are used for post-arrest cases where technology assesses the likelihood of a person to re-offend from details of their profile. The information is used by judges to aid in their profiling and their judgment. We cannot deny the many benefits of AI in regards to making work easier, but we cannot replace the personal touch of a human judge with a robot. Judges are humans, and every human can feel empathy and relate to others. Artificial Intelligence is designed to make decisions using fixed facts and it cannot feel emotions or empathy It is important to understand that most crimes happen based on some type of emotion, such as hatred, anger, jealousy, love, and fear. If a judge cannot relate or understand these emotions, they are not able to make objective judgments (Kugler 20). AI judges cannot, therefore, make objective judgments for lack of emotional understanding.

Some people argue that AI would make the best judges because they would not be biased. Countries such as Estonia are planning to use AI judges for small cases that have piled up and are proving too much work for the judiciary staff. Human judges may sometime be biased, but their profession calls for them to always put their bias aside when handling cases. Professional judges have never let emotions or preconceived judgments influence their work as they know that the lives of the defendants depend on their decisions (Sourdin 1114). If anything, human judges can mitigate cases of bias, whereas AI cannot. We cannot affirm that AI is completely unbiased. It is because humans make the technology and the algorithms developed for judging. These humans are biased in their way, which revokes the idea that AI will be unbiased. The predetermined ways of making judgments for AI will be based on the developer’s bias, and the systems can’t mitigate these biases (Sourdin & Richard 90). The whole idea establishes that human judges and their biases are far better than AI judges who can’t move past predetermined biases.

In conclusion, we establish that artificial intelligence is not completely useless in the judiciary system. It has proven very useful as used in the police units and even for sorting out information such as determining the likelihood to re-offend. These are essential tasks, and AI makes some tasks easier to handle. However, AI judging is not appropriate as that is the one element of the judiciary system that must have a human touch to it. The courtroom requires sensitivity and emotional connection as well as empathy, which AI cannot comprehend or incorporate.

Kugler, Logan. “AI judges and juries.” (2018): 19-21.

Alarie, Benjamin, Anthony Niblett, and Albert H. Yoon. “How Artificial Intelligence Will Affect the Practice of Law”(2018) 68.” UTLJ 1: 106.

Ben-Ari, Daniel, et al. “Artificial Intelligence in the practice of law: an analysis and proof of concept experiment.” Rich. JL & Tech. 23 (2016): 2.

Sourdin, Tania. “Judge v. Robot: Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making.” UNSWLJ 41 (2018): 1114.

Sourdin, Tania, and Richard Cornes. “Do judges need to be human? The implications of technology for responsive judging.” The Responsive Judge. Springer, Singapore, 2018. 87-119.