Based on Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Field Operation Status and Countermeasure Analysis

Artificial intelligence is a recently emerging system that uses computers and big data as the basis to simulate human-like behavior with machines. Artificial intelligence is a way to imitate human thinking by learning massive data knowledge and using algorithms to reason and analyze the data. In the current age of advanced technology, many jobs in the justice system can be replaced by artificial technology technologies. Many courts have now scrutinized the use of artificial intelligence in the judiciary. With artificial intelligence, timely warnings on all aspects of admissions can effectively protect random or outdated trials and allocate social resources appropriately. In addition, it may better redress cases of misconduct and irregular conduct in the judiciary, which is conducive to justice. Based on BP neural network, research on related content and other methods has drawn relevant arguments, which will provide a certain theoretical basis for artificial intelligence to assist the judicial field in the future. The research in this article shows that artificial intelligence is conducive to suppressing duty crimes in the judicial field, promoting the transformation of extensive processing to intensive processing, and is conducive to judicial efficiency. In 2017, there were more than 8 million first-instance civil cases, but only 100,000 cases were closed. But by 2020, with the construction of smart courts, millions of cases out of more than 10 million first-instance civil cases are expected to be closed. The situation has been greatly improved. But at the same time, we also need to prevent the leakage of artificial intelligence to personal privacy, establish and improve corresponding laws and regulations, and coordinate the judgment relationship between the human brain and the machine brain. Artificial intelligence may be more suitable for assisting judicial judgments.

A Common Clerk as Courtholder: Geoffrey Spirleng in Late Medieval Norwich

Courtholders presided over a variety of late medieval English courts. Like most courtholders before 1500, Geoffrey Spirleng, common clerk of Norwich, did not attend an inn of court or chancery. Nevertheless, his experiences as a courtholder and as common clerk qualified him as a legal professional. Because of the frequency of lawsuits, people of all backgrounds were impacted by courtholders’ actions. This article argues that courtholders played a crucial role in ensuring judicial efficiency and consistency.

The Speed of Justice

Can procedural reforms improve judicial efficiency? And do improvements in judicial efficiency benefit firms? We combine the staggered roll-out of a reform that required judges in Senegal to complete pre-trials within four months with high-frequency caseload data and firm tax filings. The reform improved judicial efficiency, with no e.ect on quality. Firm monthly revenues drop by 8-11 percent upon entering pre-trial, and decline by on average 3.2-5.0 percent for every 100 days a case spends in pre-trial. Survey results show firms are willing to pay higher legal fees to achieve post-reform speed, suggesting positive benefits of the reform on firms.

Determinants of judges’ career choices and productivity: a Polish case study

The goal of this paper is to identify factors which affect judges’ productivity and career choice motives with the view of increasing judicial efficiency. Specifically, the investigation focuses on such aspects as judges’ remuneration, promotion, threat of judgment revocation, service/mission, periodic assessment, the threat of a complaint about protracted proceedings or of disciplinary proceedings, the threat of destabilization of the employment relationship, status/prestige of the profession, power/authority, social recognition, leisure, as well as administrative supervision and self-monitoring. To this end, a survey was conducted among judges of three of the largest Polish regional courts and subordinate district courts. The descriptive and statistical analyses show that judges’ care for the number of cases resolved, proxying for their productivity, is significantly correlated with self-monitoring of their adjudication activity. The stability of employment, the status/prestige of the profession and a relatively high remuneration are the most important factors in terms of judges’ career choices. In their care for the number of cases resolved remuneration is, albeit, no longer a relevant factor. Judges monitor their productivity due to reasons other than remuneration, possibly the sense of service/mission and the threat of various adverse consequences, the evidence for which is, however, also rather weak.