Cui bono? Judicial decision-making in the era of AI: A qualitative study on the expectations of judges in Germany

Anna-Katharina Dhungel, Moreen Heine
{"title":"Cui bono? Judicial decision-making in the era of AI: A qualitative study on the expectations of judges in Germany","authors":"Anna-Katharina Dhungel, Moreen Heine","doi":"10.14512/tatup.33.1.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite substantial artificial intelligence (AI) research in various domains, limited attention has been given to its impact on the judiciary, and studies directly involving judges are rare. We address this gap by using 20 in-depth interviews to investigate German judges’ perspectives on AI. The exploratory study examines (1) the integration of AI in court proceedings by 2040, (2) the impact of increased use of AI on the role and independence of judges, and (3) whether AI decisions should supersede human judgments if they were superior to them. The findings reveal an expected trend toward further court digitalization and various AI use scenarios. Notably, opinions differ on the influence of AI on judicial independence and the precedence of machine decisions over human judgments. Overall, the judges surveyed hold diverse perspectives without a clear trend emerging, although a tendency toward a positive and less critical evaluation of AI in the judiciary is discernible.","PeriodicalId":504838,"journal":{"name":"TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.1.14","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

Despite substantial artificial intelligence (AI) research in various domains, limited attention has been given to its impact on the judiciary, and studies directly involving judges are rare. We address this gap by using 20 in-depth interviews to investigate German judges’ perspectives on AI. The exploratory study examines (1) the integration of AI in court proceedings by 2040, (2) the impact of increased use of AI on the role and independence of judges, and (3) whether AI decisions should supersede human judgments if they were superior to them. The findings reveal an expected trend toward further court digitalization and various AI use scenarios. Notably, opinions differ on the influence of AI on judicial independence and the precedence of machine decisions over human judgments. Overall, the judges surveyed hold diverse perspectives without a clear trend emerging, although a tendency toward a positive and less critical evaluation of AI in the judiciary is discernible.
Cui bono?人工智能时代的司法决策:关于德国法官期望的定性研究
尽管人工智能(AI)在各个领域都有大量研究,但人们对其对司法机构的影响却关注有限,而直接涉及法官的研究更是凤毛麟角。我们利用 20 个深度访谈,调查了德国法官对人工智能的看法,从而弥补了这一空白。这项探索性研究探讨了:(1) 到 2040 年人工智能在法院诉讼程序中的整合;(2) 人工智能使用的增加对法官角色和独立性的影响;(3) 如果人工智能的判决优于人类判决,那么人工智能判决是否应取代人类判决。调查结果揭示了法院进一步数字化的预期趋势和各种人工智能的使用场景。值得注意的是,在人工智能对司法独立的影响以及机器判决优先于人类判决的问题上,各方意见不一。总体而言,接受调查的法官持有不同的观点,但没有出现明显的趋势,不过可以看出,他们对司法机构中的人工智能的评价倾向于积极而非批判性。
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