Information technologies in judicial process: opportunities of artificial intelligence in evidence system

O. Sherstoboev, Irina V. Mikheeva
{"title":"Information technologies in judicial process: opportunities of artificial intelligence in evidence system","authors":"O. Sherstoboev, Irina V. Mikheeva","doi":"10.22363/2313-2337-2024-28-1-178-195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The study is devoted to ambiguous issues of using artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial process. The purpose of the study is to present foreign experience of using information technologies in court proceedings based on the example of the most controversial and debated ideas concerning resources of artificial intelligence in the system of evidence. Special attention is paid to successful mechanisms of using AI in foreign judicial practice at the stage of evidence assessment. The study presents several decisions of foreign courts, formed with the help of AI. The findings allow to express opinion about admissibility of evidence evaluated by AI. The study employs methods of general scientific cognition and special methods including comparative legal. The dialectical method allows to investigate genesis and progressive development of judicial process technologization. The methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction contribute to highlighting disadvantages of predictive coding at the proving stage and advantages of electronic research of evidence, options for simultaneous disclosure of evidence using different methods on the example of specific court decisions. The comparative legal method helps to identify best practices of using artificial intelligence in the system of evidence in foreign countries. The study not only describes the tools of predicting justice in European judicial practice, but also examines the problems of Chinese \"instrumental justice\" that can arise in any country. Conclusion justifies predictive coding as a tool of predictive justice, provided that general rules for information disclosure are developed and specifics of machine learning for a particular case are considered. It is noted that artificial intelligence has not yet become the predominant method in any types of legal proceedings. This may be explained by insufficient confidence in it across legal communities and time needed to form a successful history of its use for solving legally significant tasks in various spheres of human life.","PeriodicalId":32648,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Law","volume":" 83","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2337-2024-28-1-178-195","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

The study is devoted to ambiguous issues of using artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial process. The purpose of the study is to present foreign experience of using information technologies in court proceedings based on the example of the most controversial and debated ideas concerning resources of artificial intelligence in the system of evidence. Special attention is paid to successful mechanisms of using AI in foreign judicial practice at the stage of evidence assessment. The study presents several decisions of foreign courts, formed with the help of AI. The findings allow to express opinion about admissibility of evidence evaluated by AI. The study employs methods of general scientific cognition and special methods including comparative legal. The dialectical method allows to investigate genesis and progressive development of judicial process technologization. The methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction contribute to highlighting disadvantages of predictive coding at the proving stage and advantages of electronic research of evidence, options for simultaneous disclosure of evidence using different methods on the example of specific court decisions. The comparative legal method helps to identify best practices of using artificial intelligence in the system of evidence in foreign countries. The study not only describes the tools of predicting justice in European judicial practice, but also examines the problems of Chinese "instrumental justice" that can arise in any country. Conclusion justifies predictive coding as a tool of predictive justice, provided that general rules for information disclosure are developed and specifics of machine learning for a particular case are considered. It is noted that artificial intelligence has not yet become the predominant method in any types of legal proceedings. This may be explained by insufficient confidence in it across legal communities and time needed to form a successful history of its use for solving legally significant tasks in various spheres of human life.
司法程序中的信息技术:人工智能在证据系统中的机遇
本研究致力于探讨在司法程序中使用人工智能(AI)的模糊问题。研究的目的是以证据系统中人工智能资源方面最具争议和辩论的观点为例,介绍国外在法庭诉讼中使用信息技术的经验。研究特别关注了国外司法实践中在证据评估阶段使用人工智能的成功机制。本研究介绍了外国法院在人工智能帮助下做出的几项判决。研究结果有助于对人工智能评估证据的可采性发表意见。研究采用了一般科学认知方法和包括比较法在内的特殊方法。辩证法有助于研究司法程序技术化的起源和逐步发展。分析与综合、归纳与演绎的方法有助于突出证明阶段预测编码的缺点和证据电子研究的优点,以及以具体法院判决为例使用不同方法同时披露证据的选择。比较法律方法有助于确定外国在证据系统中使用人工智能的最佳做法。本研究不仅介绍了欧洲司法实践中的司法预测工具,还探讨了任何国家都可能出现的中国 "工具性司法 "问题。结论认为,只要制定了信息披露的一般规则,并考虑到特定案件机器学习的具体情况,预测编码作为预测性司法的工具是合理的。我们注意到,人工智能尚未成为任何类型法律程序中的主要方法。这可能是由于法律界对人工智能的信心不足,以及使用人工智能解决人类生活各领域中具有法律意义的任务的成功历史需要时间。
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
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信