Limites Éticos para o Uso da Inteligência Artificial no Sistema de Justiça Brasileiro, de Acordo com a Lei 13.709 de 2018 (LGPD) e Resoluções 331 e 332 do Conselho Nacional de Justiça

This research analyzes how artificial intelligence has been applied by the Judiciary in Brazil. What ethical limits should be established and observed in the implementation of Artificial Intelligence before the Resolutions of the CNJ, n. 331 that established the National Database of the Judiciary – DataJud, n. 332 that provides for ethics, transparency and Governance in the production and use of Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary and Law 13,709 of 2018 that regulates data protection in Brazil. It is concluded that based on the Ethics on the use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems (CEPEJ), based on Articles 5, XXXVII and LIII, Article 93, IX of the CF/88, Article 20 of 13,709/2018 (LGPD) and Resolutions 331 and 332/2020 of the CNJ point to the need for human supervision in judicial decisions that use artificial intelligence in observance of the right of explanation and review. There are ethical limits to be observed in the production and use of Artificial Intelligence to avoid the bias and opacity of data that may contaminate judicial decisions from absolute nullity. Deductive method and bibliographic technique are used for the production of this article.

Court as a Platform: New Approaches to Building a Judicial System

Formulation of the Problem. The concept of the court as a platform marks a new direction in the study of the problems of the organization and functioning of judicial systems. The idea of «court as a platform» needs scientific argumentation, which will allow building the theory of legal regulation of digital platforms in the activities of courts. Purpose of the Work: to identify the theoretical and methodological foundations of the platform model of the organization of the judicial system and its main characteristics, as well as to formulate the prospects for the development of judicial platforms in the digital era. Results, Brief Conclusions. The principle «state as a platform» reveals one of the principles of interaction of the digital state with the population and business and serves as a worldview basis for understanding the essence of the platform model of the judicial system. The article argues that the judicial platform is a form of manifestation of the judiciary in the digital environment. The projects of its legal regulation are analyzed. A new stage in the evolution of the judicial system is associated with the introduction of judicial platforms, since the basic judicial institutions are being transformed. An overview of the prospects for the development of the platform model of the organization of the judicial system is given.

A Just Weight and Measure: Embodied Economics and the Relationship between Worship and Economic Transaction

The concept of a ‘just weight and measure’ within the Bible is one that has insightful value for Christian ethics and economic transactions. Considering that in many situations law and judicial systems within Western society are not capable of completely constraining unethical economic transactions, what society requires are alternative motivations to enact ethical economic transactions. This article is focused on proposing a possible motivation for Christians considering the ever-growing complexities within the marketplace. It draws on insights on the concept of a ‘just weight and measure’ in Deuteronomy and its conceptual use within the books of the eighth-century prophets. A primary insight that is highlighted is the relationship between the unethical economic transactions in eighth-century Israel and God's rejection of their cultic services. When applied analogically to contemporary contexts, lessons can be gleaned from the concept of a ‘just weight and measure’ for Christian ethical economic transactions.

Being Easy to Communicate Might Make Verdicts Based on Confessions More Legitimate

In many judicial systems, confessions are a requirement for criminal conviction. Even if confessions are intrinsically convincing, this might not entirely explain why they play such a paramount role. In addition, it has been suggested that confessions owe their importance to their legitimizing role, explaining why they could be required even when other evidence has convinced a judge. But why would confessions be particularly suited to justify verdicts? One possibility is that they can be more easily transmitted from one individual to the next, and thus spread in the population without losing their convincingness. 360 English-speaking participants were asked to evaluate the convincingness of one of three justifications for a verdict, grounded either in a confession, eyewitnesses, or circumstantial evidence, and to pass on that justification to another participant, who performed the same task. Then, 240 English-speaking participants evaluated the convincingness of some of the justifications produced by the first group of participants. Compared to the other justifications, justifications based on confessions lost less of their convincingness in the transmission process (small to medium effect sizes). Modeling pointed to the most common forms the justifications would take as they are transmitted, and results showed that the most common variant of the justification based on a confession was more convincing (small to medium effect sizes).

When in Rome... on Local Norms and Sentencing Decisions

ABSTRACT We study spatial variation in criminal sentencing. We show the existence of local sentencing practices varying widely even across geographically proximate areas. Using compulsory rotation of judges in North Carolina, we find that judges arriving in a new court gradually converge towards local sentencing practices. We provide evidence that convergence in sentencing corresponds to a process of learning about local practices, which is accelerated by the presence of senior judges in the district, and that these sentencing practices are correlated with local norms of behavior. Finally, we discuss the theoretical implications of these results for the optimal design of judicial systems.

Introduction: Current Perspectives on Islamic Family Law in Africa

This special issue of Islamic Africa brings together new critical perspectives on the status of Islamic Family Law, commonly referred to as sharīʿa, within four African countries – Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique and Senegal – each reflecting distinctive gendered cultural, colonial and postcolonial realities. The introduction provides a general overview of the state of the art on Islamic family law in Africa and highlights the significant thematic focus of each contribution and the new areas for further inquiry that the volume opens. These topics and questions include among others: (a) the ways in which European colonialism and contemporary democratization processes have opened spaces for religious pluralism, thereby shaping the articulation of Muslim personal law within different African postcolonial state judicial systems; (b) how Islamic judicial practices, institutions, and authorities such as malamai and/or Kadhis engage themselves with the secular state and/or are constrained by both the state and by the legal pluralism encountered within both Muslim majority and minority African countries; (c) the gendered implications of the hierarchical relation between Kadhi Courts and a national High Court; (d) the benefits and/or shortcomings of harmonizing Islamic Family Law; (e) what is to be learnt from women choosing to settle marital disputes and divorce within and/or outside the “legal protective space” afforded by the state judicial system and its inclusion of Islamic Family Law; (f) the role of human agency in influencing the administration of Islamic family law and/or interpreting the law; how judicial systems that are shaped by European and Islamic patriarchal systems confronted by the resilience of indigenous matrilineal Customary Law within contemporary African societies; and (g) the compatibility between the various articulation of African Islamic family laws with universal human rights and individual freedom. Ultimately, this special issue of Islamic Africa offers an insightful reflection on how Islamic Family Law plays an important role in democratic constitution-making or testing processes.

Sustainability reporting in justice systems: a comparative research in two European countries

Purpose That on accountability in public organizations is quite an old debate. Its introduction in judicial systems is, however, still viewed with some suspicion, due to its potential trade-off with independence and impartiality. Nevertheless, the need to respond to the demands for greater transparency and accountability has also pushed judicial organizations to establish a dialogue with a wide range of subjects. This study aims to explore the understanding and the current practices of sustainability reporting currently in place in judicial systems. Design/methodology/approach The study adopts a comparative approach, conducting an online survey in two European countries (Italy and Poland). The survey was built around the research questions and literature and administered between February and March 2020. Specifically, 804 courts were involved, of which 430 are in Italy and 374 in Poland. Findings Findings show that the current practices are still not widespread and there is still a lack of understanding of what sustainability reporting is, and therefore, of what its potential usefulness within the courts could be. Moreover, many differences between the two countries are pointed out, so it is possible to assume that the different cultural and institutional settings influence sustainability reporting practices. Finally, some interesting implications for policymakers are provided. Originality/value Judicial organizations are still poorly investigated in the literature, despite being at the center of a wide public and political debate. Moreover, the international comparative perspective adopted constitutes a further aspect of novelty.

Equal Liberty – Questioning the Right to Freedom of Religion?

This paper tackles the question of how to handle the phenomenon of “religion” by widely secularized judicial systems by analyzing the “Equal Liberty”-concept from legal scholars Eisgruber and Sager. While they assume that everything worth protecting is already covered by existing anti-discrimination laws, freedom of expression and association, and judge the right to religious freedom as itself discriminatory, this paper considers how this right can be part of an emancipatory human rights approach, which helps us think beyond an antagonistic relationship between religious freedom and other human rights.