Robotes-judges: «Transfer of weight (the symbol of court) from the hands of traders to the hands of an angel» or high technology in the future of the legal profession?

Abstract

Today’s realities are such that judges in Ukraine have become much more distant from the people and are perceived by the population as part of the state apparatus, making decisions on the basis of “telephone law”, and not as an independent judicial branch of government.
 Ordinary citizens, investors and entrepreneurs must be sure of the complete objectivity and impartiality of the judicial system without the possibility of arbitrariness of officials in it, therefore more and more supporters of the complete transition to an automated (robotic) judicial system appear.
 However, along with this, there are opponents of the use of artificial intelligence in the judicial process. Thus, one party believes that the future and the legal profession will soon die out due to high technologies, others distrust any computerization of the judicial process.
 Certain judicial bodies of different countries - France, the USA, China, Great Britain - already use artificial intelligence to help the judge in certain circumstances - for example, to prepare procedural documents, check the correctness of filling in the details of the parties and selection of court practice.
 However, as in other countries, in Ukraine they are working on the digitization of the maximum space in the field of justice. Currently, applications are submitted electronically using the “Electronic Court” system, remote participation in the meeting, as well as their audio and video recording.
 Of course, it is impossible to stop the development of technologies, including in the judiciary. Therefore, when there are hypothetical moments in the future that the functional capabilities of artificial intelligence will exceed the capabilities of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, then quite relevant questions arise in view of the probability of the onset of a “legal singularity”.
 In addition, there are still many unresolved issues, such as the issue of remote certification of evidence, legal and ethical barriers, and enforcement of the decision.
 Thus, in such a world, the law will move into a state of equilibrium between facts and norms. This threatens the death of the system of legal argumentation, which currently forms the basis of judicial evidence.