scholarly journals Paths to Digital Justice: Judicial Robots, Algorithmic Decision-Making, and Due Process

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Pedro RUBIM BORGES FORTES
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Software Algorithms ◽  
Criminal Justice Systems ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Human Quality

Abstract The paths to digital justice focus on the challenges of contemporary digital societies in reaching automated decision-making processes through software, algorithms, and information technology without loss of its human quality and the guarantees of due process. In this context, this article reflects on the possibilities of establishing judicial robots in substitution for human judges, by examining whether artificial intelligence and algorithms may support judicial decision-making independently and without human supervision. The point of departure for this analysis comes from the experience of criminal justice systems with software for judgment of the possibility of recidivism of criminal defendants. Algorithmic decision-making may improve the public good in support of judicial decision-making, but the analysis of current technology and our standards for due process of law recommends caution on the conclusion that robots may replace human judges and satisfy our expectations for explainability and fairness in adjudication.

How Judges Use Weapons of Influence: The Social Psychology of Courts

2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-24
Author(s):  
Guy Davidov ◽  
Maayan Davidov
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Face ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
The Government

Research on compliance has shown that people can be induced to comply with various requests by using techniques that capitalise on the human tendencies to act consistently and to reciprocate. Thus far this line of research has been applied to interactions between individuals, not to relations between institutions. We argue, however, that similar techniques are applied by courts vis-à-vis the government, the legislature and the public at large, when courts try to secure legitimacy and acceptance of their decisions. We discuss a number of known influence techniques – including ‘foot in the door’, ‘low-balling’, ‘giving a reputation to uphold’ and ‘door in the face’ – and provide examples from Israeli case law of the use of such techniques by courts. This analysis offers new insights that can further the understanding of judicial decision-making processes.

Reporting case law: unreported cases, the definition of a ratio and the criteria for reporting decisions

Legal Studies ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. H. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Efficient System ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Reporting Decisions ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Practical Arguments

An efficient system of law reporting is beneficial in a number of ways. First, accurate reports are necessary if the principle that like cases should be decided alike is to be achieved. Secondly and relatedly, a strict system of precedent, which renders most decisions binding on courts, requires all decisions which have precedential value to be recorded. Thirdly, full reports of what judges say, including dissents, enable subsequent courts to consider the complex of normative and practical arguments which has been articulated in previous decisions. This both adds to the richness of material guiding lawyers and citizens at large and improves the quality of judicial decision-making. Fourthly, reporting courts’ reasons for reaching a decision is important since it exposes judges to scrutiny by fellow judges, practitioners, academics and the public at large. Reporting therefore serves the principle of accountability.

The Study of Judicial Decision-Making as an Aspect of Political Behavior

1958 ◽  
Vol 52 (4) ◽  
pp. 1007-1025 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glendon A. Schubert
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Behavior ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Natural Sciences ◽  
Frame Of Reference ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Decision Making Behavior

In a recent essay, Richard Snyder has stated that: “[A] paradox in political science is the lack … of any systematic attention to the analysis of the decision-making behavior of judges.” It is not my purpose to argue either for or against the particular frame of reference for decision-making analysis advocated by Snyder. I do believe, however, that he has correctly identified the approach—the analysis of judicial decision-making as an aspect of political behavior—which is most likely to command the focus of interest and activity of the coming generation of political scientists whose substantive concern is with the study of political problems in the area of our discipline traditionally known as public law.The concept “political behavior” remains sufficiently novel within the public law fraternity to impose something of an obligation to make clear what I have in mind in using the term. I shall borrow from David B. Truman who, in a Brookings Lecture not long ago, defined the “behavioral sciences” as “those bodies of knowledge, in whatever academic department they may be found, that provide or aspire to provide ‘verified principles’ of human behavior through the use of methods of inquiry similar to those of the natural sciences.”

scholarly journals An Analysis of the Public Protector's Investigatory and Decision-Making Procedural Powers

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Constantine Theophilopoulos ◽  
Charles De Matos Ala
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Public ◽  
Primary Problem

This article critically analyses the Draft Rules to the Public Protector Act 23 of 1994 and examines the efficacy of the Public Protector’s decision-making procedural powers. Several procedural lacunae are identified. In particular the article evaluates the procedural distinction between an investigation and a hearing as defined in the Draft Rules and the Act. It is unclear from a reading of the Draft Rules whether a hearing is simply part of the Public Protector’s investigatory process or whether it functions as a separate quasi-judicial decision-making process in its own right. A significant lacuna is the failure to specify the procedural protections available to an implicated person or a witness in an investigation or a hearing. A primary problem with the Draft Rules is the very broad procedural powers awarded to the Public Protector which are open to procedural abuse. The article suggests a number of amendments to the Draft Rules which should be modelled on the procedural methodology applied in the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act 74 of 1996. Moreover, the article suggests that the decision-making powers of the Public Protector should be divided between the Public Protector and an independent and temporarily appointed adjudicator.

scholarly journals Does the Law Matter? An Examination of How a State’s Definition of Law Impacts Judicial Decision Making

2007 ◽  
Vol 28 ◽  
pp. 181-204
Author(s):  
Kyle Scott
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Due Process Rights ◽  
Past Half

Only a few studies in political science in the past half decade have taken the decline in common law seriously. This paper assesses whether or not those of us in the discipline should take it seriously. This project employs an original index for the common law in order to assess to what degree a state’s definition of the law impacts judicial decision making. The results show that states with a greater commitment to the common law show greater regard for due process rights. This study concludes that a state’s definition of the law matters.

Context Effects in Judicial Decision Making

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski ◽  
Chris Guthrie ◽  
Andrew J. Wistrich
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Context Effects ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document