Could Robot Judges Believe? Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial as we approach the Digital Age

Sabine Gless
{"title":"Could Robot Judges Believe? Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial as we approach the Digital Age","authors":"Sabine Gless","doi":"10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i5.22849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Criminal proof is unique, in that it must be able to account for the justification of both: accurate fact-finding and a fair trial. This is Sarah Summers’ main message in her article on the epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial, which focusses on belief as a sort of proxy for societal acceptance of truth as a set of facts established by compliance to procedural rules. This commentary tests her finding by scrutinizing whether it is conceivable that robots, complying to all rules, assist in fact-finding with a specific form of legal belief based on a sophisticated probability weighting opaque to humans. The result is in accordance with Sarah Summers: as long as robots cannot explain their beliefs, any criminal proof based on them flounders as it can neither be part of a fair trial nor ensure acceptance in the existing institutional framework.","PeriodicalId":252725,"journal":{"name":"Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quaestio facti. Revista internacional sobre razonamiento probatorio","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i5.22849","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Criminal proof is unique, in that it must be able to account for the justification of both: accurate fact-finding and a fair trial. This is Sarah Summers’ main message in her article on the epistemic ambitions of the criminal trial, which focusses on belief as a sort of proxy for societal acceptance of truth as a set of facts established by compliance to procedural rules. This commentary tests her finding by scrutinizing whether it is conceivable that robots, complying to all rules, assist in fact-finding with a specific form of legal belief based on a sophisticated probability weighting opaque to humans. The result is in accordance with Sarah Summers: as long as robots cannot explain their beliefs, any criminal proof based on them flounders as it can neither be part of a fair trial nor ensure acceptance in the existing institutional framework.
机器人裁判会相信吗?数字时代下刑事审判的认知野心
刑事证据是独特的,因为它必须能够说明两个理由:准确的事实发现和公平的审判。这是Sarah Summers在她关于刑事审判的认识论野心的文章中所传达的主要信息,这篇文章关注的是信仰作为一种代理,它代表了社会对真理的接受程度,真理是通过遵守程序规则而建立起来的一系列事实。这篇评论对她的发现进行了检验,仔细研究了是否可以想象,遵守所有规则的机器人,基于人类不透明的复杂概率加权,用一种特定形式的法律信念来协助事实发现。其结果与莎拉•萨默斯(Sarah Summers)的观点一致:只要机器人不能解释它们的信念,任何基于它们的刑事证据都会陷入困境,因为它既不能成为公平审判的一部分,也不能确保在现有制度框架中得到接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信