Justice in the Digital Age: Technological Solutions, Hidden Threats and Enticing Opportunities
Summary: 1. Introduction. – 2. Technological Solutions for Justice in the Digital Age. – 3. Risks of Using Digital Instruments in the Justice System. – 4. Algorithmic Justice: Is It Possible? – 5. Conclusions.
Abstract
This article focuses on and weighs the main benefits and risks of introducing and deploying technological instruments for justice, as well as their potential effect on fairness. The replacement with and complementary use of technological solutions in light of their application in the judicial system in the digital age are considered.
The explicit and implicit risks that arise from the introduction and deployment of technology instruments are analysed. Taking an axiological approach that assumes the a priori value of human rights, justice, and the rule of law, we evaluate the main dangers that the use of technological solutions in the justice system entails.
With the help of formal legal and comparative legal methods, as well as the analysis of scientific literature and contextual analysis of open sources on the capabilities of artificial intelligence and the bias of algorithms, the article fills in the gaps regarding the potential of technology to improve access to justice and the use of algorithms in decision-making. It is noted that some technological solutions, as well as the usual behaviour of all actors in the digital era, change the nature of interactions, including those in the justice system.
The question of the possibility of algorithmic justice is considered from the standpoint of fairness and non-discrimination. The article shows how the use of algorithms can improve procedural fairness but emphasises a careful and balanced approach to other elements of fairness.
About Authors
Ackowledgments
Authors would like to express their gratitude to the reviewers for their help and for the English editor, Sarah White.
Conflict of interest
The authors have declared that no conflict of interest or competing interests exist.
Contributors
All the co-authors have read, approved the final version and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of this article.
Razmetaeva Yulia
PhD (Law), Assoc. Prof. of the Department of Theory and Philosophy of Law,
Head of the Center for Law, Ethics and Digital Technologies
Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine
yu.s.razmetaeva@nlu.edu.ua
Razmetaev Sergiy
PhD (Law), Assoc. Prof. of the Department of Environmental Law,
Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine
s.v.razmetayev@nlu.edu.ua
References
1. Borysova VI, Ivanova KYu, Iurevych IV, Ovcharenko OM, ‘Judicial Protection of Civil Rights in Ukraine: National Experience through the Prism of European Standards’ (2019) 10 (1) Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics66-84. doi: 10.14505//jarle.v10.1(39).09.
2. Castell S, ‘The Future Decisions of RoboJudge HHJ Arthur Ian Blockchain: Dread, Delight or Derision?’ (2018) 34 (4) Computer Law & Security Review 739-753. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2018.05.011.
3. Cofone IN, ‘Algorithmic Discrimination Is an Information Problem’ (2019) 70 Hastings Law Journal 1389.
4. Council Conclusions ‘Access to Justice – Seizing the Opportunities of Digitalisation’, Council of the European Union, Brussels, 8 October 2020 (OR. en) 11599/20 <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-11599-2020-INIT/en/pdf> accessed 12 April 2021.
5. ELI Principles for the COVID-19 Crisis, Consolidated Version of the 2020 ELI Principles for the COVID-19 Crisis and the 2021 Supplement, European Law Institute, 2021 <https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/p_eli/Publications/Consolidated_ELI_Principles_for_the_COVID-19_Crisis.pdf> accessed 12 April 2021.
6. European judicial systems CEPEJ Evaluation Report, 2020 Evaluation cycle (2018 data), Part 2, Country profiles, Council of Europe, September 2020 <https://rm.coe.int/evaluation-report-part-2-english/16809fc059> accessed 23 April 2021.
7. Council of Europe, ‘European judicial systems CEPEJ Evaluation Report, 2020 Evaluation cycle (2018 data), Part 1, Tables, graphs and analyses’ September 2020 <https://rm.coe.int/evaluation-report-part-1-english/16809fc058> accessed 12 April 2021.
8. Groher W, Rademacher FW, Csillaghy A, ‘Leveraging AI-based Decision Support for Opportunity Analysis’ (2019) 9 (12) Technology Innovation Management Review 29.
9. Harkens A, ‘The Ghost in the Legal Machine: Algorithmic Governmentality, Economy, and the Practice of Law’ (2018) 16 (1) Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society 16.
10. Hartmann K, Wenzelburger G, ‘Uncertainty, Risk and the Use of Algorithms in Policy Decisions: A Case Study on Criminal Justice in the USA’ (2021) Policy Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s11077-020-09414-y.
11. Izarova I, ‘Sustainable Civil Justice through Open Enforcement: The Ukrainian Experience’ (2020) 9 (5) Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 206-2016. doi: 10.36941/ajis-2020-0098.
12. Karnow CEA, ‘The Opinion of Machines’ (2017) 19 Columbia Science & Technology Law Review 136.
13. Kaplina O, Sharenko S, ‘Access to Justice in Ukrainian Criminal Proceedings During the COVID-19 Outbreak’ (2020) 2/3 (7) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe115.
14. Katz DM, Bommarito MJ II, Blackman J, ‘A General Approach for Predicting the Behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States’ (2017) 12 (4) PLoS ONE e0174698. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0174698.
15. Keddell E, ‘Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice’ (2019) 8 (10) Social Sciences, MDPI, Open Access Journal 1.
16. Gilden M, ‘Jurisdiction and the Internet: the “Real World” Meets Cyberspace’ (2000) 7 ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law 149.
17. Lim CSH, ‘Media Influence on Courts: Evidence from Civil Case Adjudication’ (2015) 17 (1) American Law and Economics Review 87. doi: 10.1093/aler/ahv005
18. La Chapelle B de, Fehlinger P, ‘Jurisdiction on the Internet: How to Move Beyond the Legal Arms Race’ (2016) Observer Research Foundation and Global Policy Journal series, 3 Digital Debates. CyFy Journal 8.
19.O’Sullivan C, Beel J, ‘Predicting the Outcome of Judicial Decisions Made by the European Court of Human Rights’ in the 27th AIAI Irish Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Cognitive Science (2019).
20. Position of the Council at first reading in view of the adoption of Regulation of The European Parliament and of The Council on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters (taking of evidence) (recast), Council of the European Union, Brussels, 22 October 2020 (OR. en) 9889/20 <https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-9889-2020-INIT/en/pdf> accessed 12 April 2021.
21. Prylutskyi S, Strieltsova O, ‘The Ukrainian Judiciary under 21st Century Challenges’ (2020) 2/3(7) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 78.
22.Schulz S, ‘Ambitious or Ambiguous? The Implications of Smart Specialisation for Core-Periphery Relations in Estonia and Slovakia’ (2019) 9 (4) Baltic Journal of European Studies49. doi: 10.1515/bjes-2019-0037
23. Stevenson M, ‘Assessing Risk Assessment in Action’ (2018) 103 Minnesota Law Review303.
24. Stevenson M, Mayson SG, ‘The Scale of Misdemeanor Justice’ (2018) 98 Boston University Law Review 731.
25.Sun M, Gerchick M, ‘The Scales of (Algorithmic) Justice: Tradeoffs and Remedies’ (2019) AI Matters 5(2), 30.
26.Terekhov V, ‘Online Mediation: A Game Changer or Much Ado About Nothing?’ (2019) 3 (2) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 33.
27.Viljoen JL, Jonnson MR, Cochrane DM, Vargen LM, Vincent GM, ‘Impact of Risk Assessment Instruments on Rates of Pretrial Detention, Postconviction Placements, and Release: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’ (2019) 43 (5) Law and Human Behavior397420. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000344.
28.Williams BA, Brooks CF, Shmargad Y, ‘How Algorithms Discriminate Based on Data They Lack: Challenges, Solutions, and Policy Implications’ (2018) 8 Journal of Information Policy78.
29. Završnik A, ‘Algorithmic Justice: Algorithms and Big Data in Criminal Justice Settings’ (2019) European Journal of Criminology. doi: 10.1177/1477370819876762.
Reviews for article
Add a Review
How to cite it?
- Y Razmetaeva, S Razmetaev ‘Justice in the Digital Age: Technological Solutions, Hidden Threats and Enticing Opportunities’ 2021 2(10) Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 104–117. DOI: 10.33327/AJEE-18-4.2-a000061
