Intelligent Decision Support in Criminal Court
https://doi.org/10.21869/2223-1501-2021-11-6-97-108
Abstract
Relevance. The achievements of the digital revolution are actively penetrating all spheres of public life. Law enforcement is also transforming, and modern technologies are increasingly being used in legal proceedings. The criminal process also feels this informational influence. But digitalization of the criminal process can go in different directions and is associated with certain risks. The greatest concern of scientists and practitioners is the use of intelligent systems when passing court decisions, since in this direction digitalization can also have a negative impact on ensuring the rights of participants in legal proceedings and other persons.
Purpose. Disclosure of the possibilities and risks of using intelligent systems for supporting judicial decisions in criminal proceedings.
Objective: to reveal modern approaches to digitalization of the criminal procedure; to identify the possibilities of using intelligent systems when the court decides on criminal cases; determine the risks accompanying the use of intelligent systems for supporting judicial decision-making in criminal proceedings, and ways to minimize them.
Methodology. In the process of working on the study, comparative-legal, formal-legal methods and general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, analogy) were used.
Results. Proposals are formulated aimed at adjusting doctrinal and legislative approaches to ensuring the rights of participants in criminal proceedings, as a prerequisite for further digitalization of the procedural activity of the court in a criminal case.
Conclusion. Currently, there are no organizational and legal conditions for the more active use of intelligent systems in the framework of criminal proceedings. It requires a systematic discussion of the possibilities for further digitalization of procedural activities, a change in approaches to the training of legal personnel, the identification of risks associated with ensuring the rights of participants in the process and the corresponding systemic adjustment of legislation.
About the Author
Elena V. Markovicheva
Russian State University of Justice
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor, Principal Research Scientist at Justice Research Center
69 Novocheryomushkinskaya str. Moscow 117418
References
1. Karckhiya A. A. Cifrovizaciya v prave i pravoprimenenii [Digitalization in Law and Law Enforcement]. Monitoring pravoprimeneniya = Monitoring of Law Enforcement, 2018, no. 1, pp. 36–40. https://doi.org/10.21681/2226-0692-2018-1-36-40.
2. Kachalova O. V. Pravosudie kak usluga: mirovoj trend [Justice as a service: a global trend]. Ugolovnyj process = Criminal process, 2019, no. 11, p. 10.
3. Taddeo M. The ethical governance of the digital during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Minds & Machines, 2020, no. 30, pp. 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09528-5
4. Markovicheva E. V. Cifrovaya transformaciya rossijskogo ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Digital transformation of Russian criminal justice]. Pravosudie = Justice, 2020, vol. 2, no 3, pp. 86–99.
5. Maslennikova L. N. K voprosu o pervyh rezul'tatah realizacii nauchnogo proekta № 18-29-16018 "Koncepciya postroeniya ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva, obespechivayushchego dostup k pravosudiyu v usloviyah razvitiya cifrovyh tekhnologij" [To the question of the first results of the implementation of the scientific project No. 18-29-16018 "The concept of constructing criminal proceedings that provide access to justice in the context of the development of digital technologies"]. Lex russica, 2020, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 70–87. https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.158.1.070-087.
6. Gawali P., Sony R. The role of artificial intelligence in improving criminal justice system: indian perspective. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 2020, no. 3, pp. 78–98. https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2020.3.78.96.
7. Vlasova V. S. K voprosu o prisposablivanii ugolovno-processual'nogo mekhanizma k cifrovoj real'nosti [On the question of adapting the criminal procedure mechanism to digital reality]. Biblioteka kriminalista. Nauchnyj zhurnal = Criminalist Library. Science Magazine, 2018, no. 1, pp. 9–18.
8. Zavrsnik Ales. Criminal justice, artificial intelligence systems, and human rights. ERA Forum, 2020, no. 20, pp. 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-020-00602-0.
9. Gavrilin Yu. V., Pobedkin A. V. Modernizaciya ugolovno-processual'noj formy v usloviyah informacionnogo obshchestva [Modernization of the criminal procedural form in the information society]. Trudy Akademii upravleniya MVD Rossii = Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2019, no. 3, pp. 27–38.
10. Sourdin Tania. Judge v robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. UNSW Law Journal, 2018, vol. 41, pp. 1114–1133. https://doi.org/10.53637/ZGUX2213.
11. Kleandrov M. I. Razmyshleniya na temu: mozhet li sud'ej byt' robot? [Reflections on the topic: can a robot be a judge?]. Rossijskoe pravosudie = Russian justice, 2018, no. 6, pp. 15–25.
12. Cvetkov Yu. A. Iskusstvennyj intellekt v pravosudii [Artificial intelligence in justice]. Zakon = Law, 2021, no. 4, pp. 91–107.
13. Vasil'ev A. A., Shpopper D., Mataeva M. H. Termin "iskusstvennyj intellekt" v rossijskom prave: doktrinal'nyj analiz [The term "artificial intelligence" in Russian law: doctrinal analysis]. Yurislingvistika = Jurislingvistics, 2018, no. 7–8, pp. 35–44.
14. Aletras N., Tsarapatsanis D., Preoţiuc-Pietro D., Lampos V. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of human rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 2016, vol. 2, pp. e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93.
15. Medvedeva M., Vols M., Wieling M. Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of human rights. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2020, vol. 28, pp. 237–266. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-019-09255-y.
16. Katz D. M., Bommarito M. J. II, Blackman J. A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PLOS ONE, 2017, no. 12, pp. e0174698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174698.
17. Reiling A. D. (Dory). Courts and artificial intelligence. International Journal for Court Administration, 2020, no. 11, p. 8. http://doi.org/10.36745/ijca.343.
18. Brennan T., Dieterich W., Ehret B. Evaluating the predictive validity of the compas risk and needs assessment system. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2009, vol. 1, pp. 21–40.
19. Starr Sonja B. Evidence-based sentencing and the scientific rationalization of discrimination. Stanford Law Review, 2014, vol. 66, no. 4, pp. 803–72.
20. Ryabinina T. K., Chebotareva I. N. Zaklyuchenie pod strazhu: prichiny i sledstviya neobhodimosti vvedeniya al'ternativnyh mer presecheniya v ugolovnom processe Rossii [Detention: causes and consequences of the need to introduce alternative preventive measures in the criminal process of Russia]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoj akademii MVD Rossii = Legal Science and Practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2019, no. 3(47), pp. 151–156. https://doi.org/10.36511/2078-5356-2019-3-151-156.
Review
For citations:
Markovicheva E.V. Intelligent Decision Support in Criminal Court. Proceedings of Southwest State University. Series: History and Law. 2021;11(6):97-108. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21869/2223-1501-2021-11-6-97-108
Views:
186
Email this article 