Interventions in Justice System and the role of Artificial Intelligence

written by Giorgos Kazoleas, Lawyer*

The institution of Justice is not an impersonal entity unaffected by human qualities and weaknesses. In practice, it is a number of  professionals,  judges, who perform, as is commonly said, a supreme function, which is, however, a daily, systematic and repetitive task consisting mainly of adjudicating cases and issuing judicial decisions.

Due to the particular importance and practical consequences that usually accompany judicial decisions, the work of judges is reasonable to be the subject of conflicting interests and the judicial judgment to be exposed to the risk or threat of being influenced by various factors including persons, social, business and political formations.

In the grand scheme of things, a court decision in some part of the planet may have absolutely no significance, but in the microcosm of the people it may affect, this decision may acquire enormous value.

The first and main threat to influencing the administration of justice is the respective state power. The latter can influence the justice system in various ways, direct or indirect, legal or illegal.

Kinds of direct intervention are:

• Political pressure: Government officials or political leaders can exert pressure on judges to influence their decisions in specific cases. The risk of political pressure is greater where judges, or the heads of the judicial hierarchy, are selected exclusively by the government. Political pressure is usually exerted on the judicial system to cover up cases and allow the guilty to remain unpunished.
• Legislative regulations: The government can enact laws that limit the independence of the judiciary or that favor particular groups or individuals.
• Judicial appointments: The government can appoint judges who are loyal to the government, rather than judges based on merit and experience.
• Budget cuts: The government can cut the budget of the judiciary, which can lead to delays, understaffing, and deterioration of infrastructure.

Examples of indirect interference include:

• Media control: The government can control the media and influence public opinion on specific cases, which can influence judges’ decisions.
• Corruption: Corruption in the judiciary can lead to biased and unfair decisions and undermine public confidence in the judicial system.
• Climate of fear: In authoritarian regimes or in "democracies" with authoritarian characteristics, the government can create a climate of fear, where judges are afraid to issue decisions that are contrary to the interests of the government.

Human weakness in judges creates vulnerabilities that allow those who want to intervene to alter their judgment. The argument of supporters of Artificial Intelligence (AI) is that its algorithms can analyze data without the human biases that can affect judicial decisions. This could lead to more objective and consistent decisions. Fear, threats, corruption, and partisanship theoretically cannot affect the judgment of the AI ​​system.

The liberation of the justice system from the human element, as prescribed by the increasingly widespread use of AI systems in the legal system, does not seem to be the solution to prevent the above phenomena. Artificial intelligence can undoubtedly assist and facilitate the daily operation of the justice mechanism, but it is not able to replace the human factor in such a critical aspect of the functioning of the state and society. AI cannot fully understand human behavior, motivations and emotional nuances that are often important in a judicial case.

In reality, what is required is the good side of the human element in the judicial function, that is, the ability to perceive, empathize and realistically judge and interpret and apply the facts of the case, that an impersonal AI system that simply collects data does not have the ability to offer.

Stopping interventions in the institution of justice can only be done through the education and a swift to a different mentality not only of judges, but mainly of citizens as a social group, so that on one hand judges are selected and rule based on their training, ability and personality, and on the other hand, citizens, politicians and businessmen do not even think about the possibility of influencing the work of administering justice in any unfair way, but even if they are tempted to do so, their thoughts do not find fertile ground in an unbiased and independent judicial system.

*Giorgos Kazoleas is qualified Lawyer in Cyprus & Greece (giorgos.kazoleas@gmail.com)