ESSAY COMPETITION WINNER
Legal Decisions Should Be Automated Using Algorithms. Discuss. This essay was a winning entry to the Immerse Education 500 Word Essay Competition, an organisation that aims to stretch the most able pupils by creating challenges and opportunities. Congratulations, Sapphyre!
ties suffer – would be common. This is hugely counter-productive particularly in the automation of taxpaying where “the group that bears the burden of that error is the general taxpaying public”. Therefore, for legal automation to develop successfully, the fall of liability must be adapted to relay errors onto the system so that “incentive to redesign behaviour for legal advantage” is mitigated and the auAutomation is the concept of “finding a substitute thenticity of computerised legal decision-making is for nerve and brain” and increases productivity whilst reducing human involvement. Since its birth not compromised. The application of rolereversibility enables “democratic legitimacy” even at Ford, automation has been limited to mundane activities. However, artificial intelligence (AI) pro- without the interference of AI. Therefore, this indicates that “the legal system will be ready for robojuvides opportunities for it to be applied to circumrors and robo-judges when it incorporates robostances involving more complex thought – such as making a legal decision. After all, it is “difficult to defenders” so for now, we must “insist on human ignore the fact that code can be used to produce reg- judgement as an essential aspect of certain kinds of ulatory effects similar to law”. Comparing decision decision making”. theory in law and science is the primal form of how Even with accurate coding, “we should expect errors law and technology could interact. Legal decision- in translation” as programmers tend to have limited making is reliant on truth and justice whilst that of law knowledge anyway. Nevertheless, misjudgetechnology is confined to fact: “equality before the ments are widespread within non-automated legal law is not the same as uniformity for the scientist”. decision-making, so how do automated inaccuracies This factor may suggest that automating legal deci- differ from this? Perhaps more effective would be a sions would eliminate a lawyer’s unconscious bias. blended approach by expert lawyers and programHowever, this is not entirely the case. In fact, biases mers to formulate the algorithms rather than them seem to be equally as prevalent in automated sysmanaging their respective concerns individually. tems because algorithms are restricted to previously entered data which can “allow [them] to inherit the Ultimately, the automating of legal decisions proprejudices of prior decision makers”. The 2020 case vides an invaluable prospect for technology to be in which GCSE and A-Level grades were algorith- incorporated into law. Although caution should be taken, the only way that it can prosper is through mically assigned showcases that “historical data testing and so it should be given a chance. However, cannot reliably predict answers in new situations” and that in automated decision-making it is the third human involvement should not be diminished. An automated legal system may be able to acquire intelparty (the students) who suffer from algorithmic ligence but human intuition and opinion are far more misjudgements. complicated to replicate and it is for this reason that Similarly, “errors committed by automated law sys- I believe legal decisions should not be fully autotems are centralized” so negative externalities – mated using algorithms. where neither the system nor user but the third par Sapphyre Mills Kennelly, Year 12, Watt House
