Floris Bex
ABSTRACT
In this article, we discuss case decision predictors, algorithms which, given some features of a legal case predict the outcome of the case (i.e. the decision of the judge). We discuss whether, and if so how, such prediction algorithms can be used to support judges in their decision making process. We conclude that case decision predictors can only be useful in individual cases if they can give legal justifications for their predictions, and that only these legal justifications are what should matter for a judge.
- N. Aletras, D. Tsarapatsanis, D. Preoţiuc-Pietro, and V. Lampos. 2016. Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science 2 (2016), e93.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- V. Aleven. 2003. Using background knowledge in case-based legal reasoning: a computational model and an intelligent learning environment. Artificial Intelligence 150 (2003), 183--237.Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Ashley. 2019. A brief history of the changing roles of case prediction in AI and law. Law in Context. A Socio-legal Journal 36, 1 (2019), 93--112.Google Scholar
- B. Babic, D. Chen, T. Evgeniou, and A.-L. Fayard. 2021. The better way to onboard AI. Harvard Business Review (2021). http://nber.org/~dlchen/papers/The_Better_Way_to_Onboard_AI.pdf To appear.Google Scholar
- T. Bench-Capon. 2020. The need for good-old fashioned AI and law. In International Trends in Legal Informatics: Festschrift for Erich Schweighofer, W. Hötzendorfer, C. Tschol, and F. Kummer (Eds.). Editions Weblaw, Bern, 23--36.Google Scholar
- R. Binns. 2020. Analogies and disanalogies between machine-driven and human-driven legal judgement. Journal of Cross-disciplinary Research in Computational Law 1, 1 (2020).Google Scholar
- S. Brueninghaus and K. Ashley. 2009. Automatically classifying case texts and predicting outcomes. Artificial Intelligence and Law 17 (2009), 125--165.Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. Chalkidis, I. Androutsopoulos, and N. Aletras. 2019. Neural legal judgment prediction in English. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics. 4317--4323.Google Scholar
- P. Dawid. 2005. Probaility and Proof. (2005). http://tinyurl.com/tz85o Appendix to Analysis of Evidence, by T. J. Anderson, D. A. Schum and W. L. Twining.Google Scholar
- European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). 2018. European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment.Google Scholar
- I. Hacking. 2001. An Introduction to Probability and Inductive Logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
- D. Katz, M. Bommarito, and J. Blackman. 2017. A general approach for predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States. PloS one 12, 4 (2017), e0174698.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. O. Keefe. 1993. Issues in the verification and validation of knowledge-based systems. In Advances in Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, V. Ambriola and G. Tortora (Eds.). Series on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Vol. 2. World Scientific Publishing Co, 173--189.Google Scholar
- E. Mackaay and P. Robillard. 1974. predicting judicial decisions: The nearest neighbor rule and visual representation of case patterns. Datenverarbeitung im Recht 3 (1974), 302--331.Google Scholar
- M. Medvedeva,, X. Xu, M. Vols, and M. Wieling. 2020. JURI SAYS: an automatic judgement prediction system for the European Court of Human Rights. In Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. JURIX 2020: The Thirty-Third Annual Conference, S. Villata, J. Harašta, and P. Křemen (Eds.). IOS Press, Amsterdam etc., 277--280.Google Scholar
- M. Medvedeva, M. Vols, and M. Wieling. 2020. Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Artificial Intelligence and Law 28, 2 (2020), 237--266.Google ScholarDigital Library
- F. Muhlenbach and I. Sayn. 2019. Artificial Intelligence and law: What do people really want?: Example of a French multidisciplinary working group. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM Press, New York, 224--228.Google Scholar
- C. O'Neil. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Crown.Google Scholar
- F. Pasquale and G. Cashwell. 2018. Prediction, persuasion, and the jurisprudence of behaviourism. University of Toronto Law Journal 68, supplement 1 (2018), 63--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Platt et al. 1999. Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. Advances in large margin classifiers 10, 3 (1999), 61--74.Google Scholar
- J. Susskind. 2018. Future Politics: Living Together in a World Transformed by Tech. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- On the relevance of algorithmic decision predictors for judicial decision making
Recommendations
Decision making process: typology, intelligence, and optimization
Decision making is concerned with evaluating and/or ranking possible alternatives of action. In this paper, we develop a model for the process of decision making. Understanding the decision process can provide insights into how humans make decisions, ...
Sustainable decision making: the role of decision support systems
Sustainable decision making stands for decision making which contributes to the transition to a sustainable society. It raises a number of challenging problems for which existing decision support systems (DSS) may not be equipped. The role of DSS in ...
Using attention methods to predict judicial outcomes
AbstractThe prediction of legal judgments is one of the most recognized fields in Natural Language Processing, Artificial Intelligence, and Law combined. By legal prediction, we mean intelligent systems capable of predicting specific judicial ...
Comments