Technology will continue to develop and become an increasingly useful way of fine-tuning a case before court.
Is it ridiculous to suggest that an algorithm can properly analyse a set of facts and make judgments based on case law? In one study, computer programs matched judges in decision-making to 96%.
So is the day still far away of bemoaning an appearance before Judge C-3PO, because he’s a tough sentencer on possession of a Death Star? Have we been warned in time to decide we have enough organic life forms that undermine solicitors already without building AI versions? How would an iJudge handle being threatened by a litigant in person? And what about the development of the common law – or the possibility that a judgment is made that humans do not understand?
Seriously, this doesn’t start with Dyson LJ 1.0 being ‘plugged in’. But technology will continue to develop and will become an increasingly useful way of testing and fine-tuning a case before it goes to court.
For low-value litigation, an internet tool may be something people turn to in order to determine whether they have a case, with confidence growing to the point where technology is trusted as ‘good enough’ to actually judge. What would determine the success or failure of developments here, as with ‘analogue’ justice, will be whether the MoJ decides it can be done too soon and on the cheap. Based on experience, as an AI robot judge would reason, that is a real risk.
Moreover, to say the robot here got one case ‘wrong’ presupposes that the matched judge got that case right. Arguably, you should be in agreement with this Gazette leader comment – 85% mirrors the amalgamated views of our online readership.