Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
As arbiters of law and fact, judges are supposed to decide cases impartially, basing their decisions on authoritative legal sources and not being influenced by irrelevant factors. Empirical evidence, however, shows that judges are often influenced by implicit biases, which can affect the impartiality of their judgment and pose a threat to the right to a fair trial. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has been increasingly used for a variety of applications in the public domain, often with the promise of being more accurate and objective than biased human decision-makers. Given this backdrop, this research article identifies how AI is being deployed by courts, mainly as decision-support tools for judges. It assesses the potential and limitations of these tools, focusing on their use for risk assessment. Further, the article shows how AI can be used as a debiasing tool, i. e., to detect patterns of bias in judicial decisions, allowing for corrective measures to be taken. Finally, it assesses the mechanisms and benefits of such use.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Giovana Lopes (Fri,) studied this question.
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/68e73dc3b6db6435876b6cb1 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.33.1.28
Giovana Lopes
TATuP - Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis
University of Bologna
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: