ꢀ
ꢀ
Contents&Abstracts
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ThispapercontendsthatthefoundationallogicofAI-drivenjudicialtrialsisinconflictwithseveral
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
facetsofthecurrentjudicialframework Primarilyꢁconcerningthemulti-tieredjudicialsystemꢁthe
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
incorporationofAI-basedjudicialdecisionscouldpotentiallyunderminetheerrorrectificationand
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
administrativefunctionalitiesinherentwithinthehierarchicalframeworkSecondlyꢁitmayleadtoa
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
dilutionoftheadversarialhearingsystemꢈsintegrityTheinformationalflowinAI-facilitatedhearings
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
tendstobeprependedꢁwrittenꢁandasynchronousꢁtherebylackingtheessentialmechanismfor
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
identifyingandprioritizingpivotalinformationꢁsuchasthecontentiousissuesduringthehearingThis
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
issueisparticularlyacuteincriminalproceedingsꢁwheredisparitiesininformationprocessing
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
capabilitiesmayexacerbatetheinherentinequalitybetweentheprosecutionanddefenseMoreoverꢁAI-
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
drivenjudicialprocessesarenotcongruentwiththeexistingevidentiarysystemandrulesꢁposing
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
potentialriskstofundamentallegalprinciplessuchasthelegalevidencedoctrineandtheobligationfor
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
witnessestoappearincourt FurthermoreꢁthesubstitutionofhumanjudgesbyAIinmediation
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
contextsisfraughtwithchallengesꢁgiventhatmediationnecessitatesnegotiationandempathyskillsꢁ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
whicharedifficultformachinestoemulateorreplicate
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
Furtheranalysisrevealsthattheseconflictsfundamentallyarisefromtheincompatibilitybetween
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
AI-drivenjudicialsystemsandtheintrinsicmechanismsofjustice Specificallyꢁbeyondmerely
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
resolvingdisputesꢁjudicialdecisionsservemultiplefunctionssuchasintegratingcoresocietalvalues
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
andprovidingeducationalguidanceꢁareaswherealgorithmsfallshortduetotheirlimitedscopebeyond
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
disputeresolution AdditionallyꢁAIjudgestransformlitigationintocloud-basedprocessesꢁsimplify
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
legalceremoniesꢁandpopularizelegallanguageꢁtherebydiminishingtheceremonialaspectsofjudicial
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
activities MoreoverꢁAI-driventrialsconflictwiththeprinciplesofmodernjudicialproceduraljusticeꢁ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
makingitchallengingtoensurethetransparencyandopennessoftrialproceduresꢁthefullexerciseof
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
partiesꢈproceduralparticipationanddebaterightsꢁandtheobjectiveneutralityofjudicialpower
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
FurthermoreꢁfromanationalconstructionperspectiveꢁAIjudgesstruggletoadapttotheroleof
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
courtsingovernanceꢁwhereashumanjudgescanseamlesslyintegratelegalprinciplesandjudicial
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
policiesacrosssocialandeconomicdimensionsꢁtherebycontributingmoreeffectivelytonational
governance
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
InlightofthesechallengesꢁthispaperpositsthattheintegrationofAIjudgesintothecurrent
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
courtsystempresentsconsiderabledifficultiesꢁwiththefundamentaldirectiveforfutureadvancements
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
beingthefacilitationofabidirectionalharmonybetweenthejudicialsystemandtechnological
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
innovation Morespecificallyꢁastratifiedapproachshouldbeadoptedintermsofcasetypesand
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
applicationcontextsꢁwithanemphasisonexploringtheimplementationofAIinstraightforwardcases
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
andmisdemeanor mattersdevoidoffactualdisputesand minimalemotionalcomplexities
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ConcurrentlyꢁintherealmoflegaldocumentdraftingꢁemphasisshouldbeplacedonleveragingAIfor
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
fact-findingandlegalapplicationItisimperativetonotonlycapitalizeontechnologicaladvancements
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
butalsoensurethestabilityandimpartialityofthejudicialsystemareupheld
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
ꢀ
KeywordsꢁAIjudgesꢉintelligentadjudicationꢉalgorithmicdecision-makingꢉjudicialsystem
201