Abstract
Judicial responsiveness requires judges to act from the perspective of conscious legal rationality and also with intuition, empathy and compassion. To what extent will the judicial role change in terms of responsiveness as many aspects of human activity, including aspects of the work of lawyers and judges, are not only augmented, but even taken over entirely by replacement technologies ? Such technologies are already reshaping the way the legal profession operates, with implications for judges by virtue of how cases are prepared and presented. In relation to courts, the judicial role is also being augmented, and modified, by technological advances, including the growth of online adjudication. There has even been speculation that the role of the judge not only could be taken online, but as computing techniques become more sophisticated, be fully automated. The role of the human judge though is not merely that of a data processor. To reduce judging to such a definition would be to reject not only the humanity of the judge, but also that of all those who come before them. A better understanding of the essential humanity of the judge will help ensure that technology plays a principled and appropriate role in advancing a responsive justice system. Insights from psychoanalytical thought will aid in that understanding, and in developing the code that drives future applications of artificial intelligence in judicial processes.
This Chapter also draws upon material in T. Sourdin (2018) forthcoming.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a helpful discussion of this issue see Sourdin and Zariski (2013).
- 2.
See ‘Responsiveness and the jurisprudence of judging’ in Chapter “What is Responsive Judging?” of this book. For an overview see also Leiter (2010). Our concern in this chapter is primarily with the challenge of coding legal rules and reasoning, and how that touches on the formalism/realism debate. A further chapter would be required to engage in detail with the question of fact finding by Judge AI. On the essential relationship between facts and law Frank (1949, 14) noted that, “a legal rule… is a conditional statement referring to facts”. Facts may be even more uncertain than legal rules (see also Frank 1930, viii–xiii), and are arguably even less amenable to Judge AI. Our argument in this chapter about the limits of Judge AI in relation to coding legal reasoning must apply with even greater force regarding facts. From a computer science perspective see also MacCrimmon and Tillers (2002).
- 3.
See also, for example, Tamburro (2012) for an analysis of computer-assisted document coding and review, often referred to as “predictive coding” with implications for the discovery process. The analysis of large sets of data is likely to have a “game-changing” impact. The technology collapses the time (and costs) needed to review millions of pages of discovered material, to identify relevant aspects without devoting massively costly person hours.
- 4.
- 5.
We do not have space here to pursue this in detail. The essence of the critique is that executives (governments), for possibly quite innocent concerns of managerial efficiency can tend to view the work of the courts as merely part of the overall justice sector, including the police and prisons, and not as the operating of a distinct branch of the state. See discussion in Elias (2017).
- 6.
It has been said that collaborative platforms, such as GroupMindExpress.com, are likely to be used more frequently in large multi-party disputes where information and participants are plentiful (Gaitenby 2004).
- 7.
For an example of one mechanism supporting disputants, see MyLawBC (n.d.), available at: http://mylawbc.com/info/about.php.
- 8.
The reforms fell because of the snap election called in 2017.
- 9.
For further discussion, see Sourdin (2015b).
- 10.
- 11.
The researchers in this area suggest that there may be a bias away from attractive same sex individuals and a bias towards attractive other sex individuals.
- 12.
For an interesting discussion of this phenomenon, see Brooks (2011, 220).
- 13.
See also Smith (2016) regarding the use of algorithms in relation to recidivism.
- 14.
- 15.
For a successful apparent bias challenge on the basis that a judge so clearly disliked aspects of criminal defendants’ rights protected in the European Convention on Human Rights, that a fair trial was not possible before an appellate court containing that judge, see: Hoekstra v. H.M. Advocate (No.2) (2000) S.L.T. 605; discussed in MacQueen and Wortley (1998).
- 16.
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) s 7C(2).
- 17.
See discussion in Le Sueur and Cornes (2000, 53–97).
- 18.
See, for example, Perry (2017), which provides a thorough treatment of the issues involved in translating law into computer code.
- 19.
It is argued that the information that may be considered by a judge has expanded significantly in recent years. See, for example, Tashea (2016).
- 20.
- 21.
While certainly linked to a number of laudable aims, and noting sensitivity issues in relation to, for example, medical data, see the proposals for “Data Trusts” in the UK to better facilitate data sharing provided by Hall and Pesenti (2017).
- 22.
For an interesting critique of modern attitudes toward knowledge sharing, see Leith (2017).
- 23.
- 24.
- 25.
For news see Future of Life Institute (n.d.-a).
- 26.
- 27.
For some reasons as to why psychoanalytic-legal work receded after the 1960s see Weisstub et al. (2016), and in response, Sourdin and Cornes (2016). There is also a long running debate about the value of psychoanalysis and Freud’s insights per se. A good place to start for the contentions on either side is Menand (2017). It will be apparent from our discussion that we do see value in psychoanalytical concepts in assisting to better understand the work of judges.
- 28.
- 29.
Space does not allow a wider discussion here of the nature of legal education, but for a CLS perspective see Kennedy (1982).
- 30.
- 31.
For a neuro-psychoanalytical view of the unconscious see Solms (2013).
- 32.
For further elucidation see discussion of the concepts of “fantasy” and “phantasy” in Brenner (2003).
- 33.
See Portia’s speech on mercy in Shakespeare’s, The Merchant of Venice, Act IV, Sc1, ll2125-46.
- 34.
The role of the social unconscious and confidence in “the judge” is set out in detail in Cornes and Henaghan (forthcoming).
- 35.
See e.g., New South Wales Department of Justice (n.d.) and Whitbourn (2015) for further detail on the new online court websites in New South Wales. The Federal Court of Australia has had an e-courtroom and expanding online lodgement services for some years, see Federal Court of Australia (n.d).
- 36.
Issues about robot ethics are currently the subject of some limited discussion. See Devlin (2016).
References
Agthe M, Spörrle M, Maner J (2011) Does being attractive always help? Positive and negative effects of attractiveness on social decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 37:1042–1054
Aletras N, Tsarapatsanis D, Preotiuc-Pietro D, Lampos V (2016) Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a natural language processing perspective. Peer J Comput Sci 2:e93. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93. Accessed 30 May 2017
Angwin J, Larson J, Mattu S, Kirchner L (2016) Machine bias. Propublica, May 23. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Ashley KD (2017) Artificial intelligence and legal analytics—new tools for the digital age. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Autor DH (2015) Why are there still so many jobs? The history and future of workplace automation. J Econ Perspect 29(3):3–30
Barendrecht M (2017) Rechtwijzer: why online supported dispute resolution is hard to implement. HIIL Innovating Justice. http://www.hiil.org/insight/rechtwijzer-why-online-supporte-dispute-resolution-is-hard-to-implement. Accessed 13 July 2017
Bathurst T (2015) iAdvocate v Rumpole: who will survive? An analysis of advocates’ ongoing relevance in the age of technology. Paper presented at 2015 Australian Bar Association Conference, Boston, 9 July 2015
Baum L (1998) The puzzle of judicial behaviour. University Michigan Press, Ann Arbor
Baum L (2008) Judges and their audiences—perspectives on judicial behaviour. Princeton University Press, Princeton
BBC4 (2011) The highest court in the land: justice makers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZtYENfNa7k. Accessed 3 Feb 2018
Bennett H, Broe GA (2007) Judicial neurobiology, Markarian synthesis and emotion: how can the human brain make sentencing decisions? Crim Law J 31(2):75–90
Benyekhlef K, Vermeys N (2017) ODR and the (BC) courts. Slaw. http://www.slaw.ca/2012/05/28/odr-and-the-bc-courts/. Accessed 19 June 2017
Bickel E, van Dijk M, Giebels E (2015) Online legal advice and conflict support: a Dutch experience. Report, University of Twente, March 2015
Brennan (1988) Reason, passion, and the progress of the law. Cardozo Law Rev 10:3–23
Brenner A (2003) Fantasy. University of Chicago. http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/fantasy.htm. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Brooks D (2011) The social animal. Random House, New York
Brooks M (2017) Artificial ignorance. New Scientist, 7 October
Cardozo B (1921) The nature of the judicial process. Yale University Press, Connecticut
Carniero D, Novais P, Andrade F, Zeleznikow J, Neves J (2014) Online dispute resolution: an artificial intelligence perspective. Artif Intell Rev 41(2):211–240
Chaphalkar NB, Iyer KC, Patil SK (2015) Prediction of outcome of construction dispute claims using multilayer perceptron neural network model. Int J Project Manage 33(8):1827–1835
Chiang J (2017) ACC accused of using model to get people off its books. Radio New Zealand, 15 September. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/339513/acc-accused-of-using-model-to-get-people-off-its-books. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Chin D (2012) Sentencing: a role for empathy. Univ Penn Law Rev 160(6):1561–1584
Chisholm R (2009) Values and assumptions in judicial cases. Paper presented at the National Judicial College Conference, Judicial Reasoning—Art or Science, Canberra, 7–8 February 2009. https://njca.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Values-and-Assumptions-in-Judicial-Decisions-Chisholm.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017
Civil Resolution Tribunal (2018) How the CRT works. https://civilresolutionbc.ca/how-the-crt-works/. Accessed 4 Feb 2018
Colby TB (2012) In defense of judicial empathy. Minn Law Rev 96:1944–2015
Cornes R, Henaghan M (forthcoming) Believing in the judge—understanding and defending the role of the fair minded and informed observer in bias jurisprudence from a psychodynamic perspective. Otago Law Rev
Craib I (2001) Psychoanalysis—a critical introduction. Polity, Cambridge
Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L (2011) Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(17):6889–6892
Devlin H (2016) Do no harm, don’t discriminate: official guidance issued on robot ethics. The Guardian (online), 18 September. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/18/official-guidance-robot-ethics-british-standards-institute?CMP=share_btn_tw. Accessed 30 May 2017
Domonoske C (2017) Elon Musk warns governors: artificial intelligence poses ‘existential risk’. The Two Way, 17 July. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/07/17/537686649/elon-musk-warns-governors-artificial-intelligence-poses-existential-risk. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Eggers D (2013) The circle. Penguin, UK
Elias S (2017) Managing criminal justice. Address given at Criminal Bar Association Conference, University of Auckland Business School, Auckland, 5 August 2017. https://www.criminalbar.org.nz/cba_conference_2017. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Etherton T (2010). Liberty, the archetype and diversity: a philosophy of judging. Public Law 727
European Commission (2017) Antitrust: commission fines Google €2.42 billion for abusing dominance as search engine by giving illegal advantage to own comparison shopping service. Press Release (27 June 2017). http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1784_en.htm. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Federal Court of Australia (n.d.) eCourtroom. http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/online-services/ecourtroom. Accessed 30 May 2017
Foer F (2017) World without mind—the existential threat of big tech. Jonathan Cape, London
Frank J (1930) Law and the modern mind. Brentano’s, New York
Frank J (1949) Courts on trial—myth and reality in American justice. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Freud S (1921) Mass psychology and analysis of the “I”. In: Mass psychology and other writings (2004). Penguin, London
Freud S (1923) The ego and the id. In: Standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, vol XIX. Hogarth Press, London
Freud S (1991) A note on the unconscious. In The essentials of psycho-analysis—the definitive collection of Sigmund Freud’s writing, selected by Anna Freud. Penguin, London
Freud S (2002) The psychopathology of everyday life (Penguin Modern Classics). Penguin Classics, London
Freud S (2008) The interpretation of dreams (Oxford World’s Classics). Oxford University Press, Oxford
Frosh S (2012) A brief introduction to psychoanalytic theory. Palgrave, Basingstoke
Future of Life Institute (n.d.-a) Artificial intelligence news. https://futureoflife.org/ai-news/. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Future of Life Institute (n.d.-b) Asilomar AI principles. https://futureoflife.org/ai-principles/. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Gaitenby A (2004) Online dispute resolution. The Internet Encyclopaedia. https://doi.org/10.1002/047148296X.tie129
Hall W, Pesenti J (2017). Growing the artificial intelligence industry in the UK, a report for the UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/growing-the-artificial-intelligence-industry-in-the-uk. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Harari YN (2015) Homo Deus: a brief history of tomorrow. Harvill Secker, London
Harvey D (2016) From Susskind to Briggs: online court approaches. J Civil Litigation Pract 5(2):84–93
Hoekstra v. H.M. Advocate (No.2) (2000) S.L.T. 605
Holmes OW (1881) The common law. http://www.general-intelligence.com/library/commonlaw.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Hyde J (2017). Prison and courts bill scrapped. Law Soc Gazette, 20 April. https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/breaking-prisons-and-courts-bill-scrapped/5060715.article. Accessed 13 July 2017
In Re JP Linaham (1943) 138 F.2d 650 (2d Cir). Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/138/650/1481751/. Accessed 4 Feb 2018
Isaacs S (1948) The nature and function of phantasy. Int J Psychoanal 73–93
Johnstone R (2016) HM Courts and Tribunals Service’s Susan Acland-Hood on digital courts, making big changes and her Whitehall hammock. Civil Service World, 6 October. https://www.civilserviceworld.com/articles/interview/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service%E2%80%99s-susan-acland-hood-digital-courts-making-big. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Kennedy D (1982) Legal education and the reproduction of hierarchy. J Leg Educ 32:591–615
Kirby M (1999a) The future of courts—do they have one? J Judicial Adm 8:383–391
Kirby M (1999b) Judging: reflections on the moment of decision. Aust Bar Rev 18:4–22
Klein DE, Mitchell G (eds) (2010) The psychology of judicial decision making. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Lanchester J (2017) You are the product. Lond Rev Books 39:3–10
Lawyal Solicitors (2016) About us. https://lawyal.com.au/about-us. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
Le Sueur A, Cornes R (2000) What do the top courts do? Curr Leg Probl 53(1):53–97
Legg M (2016) The future of dispute resolution: online ADR and online courts. Australas Dispute Resolut J 27:227–235
Leiter B (2010) Legal formalism and legal realism: what is the issue? Leg Theory 16(2):111–133
Leith S (2017) Nothing like the truth. TLS, 18 August. https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/public/post-truth-sam-leith/. Accessed 25 Aug 2017
Levin S (2016) A beauty contest was judged by AI and the robots didn’t like dark skin. The Guardian (online), 9 September. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/08/artificial-intelligence-beauty-contest-doesnt-like-black-people?CMP=share_btn_tw. Accessed 30 May 2017
Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press, New York
Liptak A (2017) Sent to prison by a software program’s secret algorithms. New York Times (online), May 1. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/sent-to-prison-by-a-software-programs-secret-algorithms.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0. Accessed 30 May 2017
Loomis v Wisconsion (2017) SCOTUSblog. http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loomis-v-wisconsin/. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Lopez I (2016) The early years begin for AI’s transformation of law. Legaltech News, 5 October. http://www.legaltechnews.com/id=1202769286334/The-Early-Years-Begin-for-AIs-Transformation-of-Law?cmp=share_twitter&slreturn=20160912054113. Accessed 29 May 2017
Lynn B, Stoller M (2017). How to stop Google and Facebook from becoming even more powerful. The Guardian, 2 November. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/02/facebook-google-monopoly-companies. Accessed 6 Feb 2018
MacCrimmon M, Tillers P (eds) (2002) The dynamics of judicial proof: computation, logic, and common sense. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg
MacMillan L (1937) Law and other things. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
MacQueen HL, Wortley S (1998) Human rights, the judges and the new Scotland. Scots Law News, 18 October. http://www.sln.law.ed.ac.uk/1998/10/18/78-human-rights-the-judges-and-the-new-scotland/. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Mason K (2001) Unconscious judicial prejudice. Aust Law J 75:676–687
Menand L (2017) The stone guest: can Sigmund Freud ever be killed? The New Yorker, 28 August, 75
Mills M (2016) Artificial intelligence in law: the state of play 2016 (Part 1). Legal Executive Institute, 23 February. http://legalexecutiveinstitute.com/artificial-intelligence-in-law-the-state-of-play-2016-part-1/. Accessed 29 May 2017
Ministry of Justice of the Government of the United Kingdom and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (2016) Transforming our justice system. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/553261/joint-vision-statement.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017
MyLawBC (n.d.) Separation, divorce & family matters. http://mylawbc.com/paths/family/. Accessed 29 May 2017
Neill D (2013) Using artificial intelligence to improve hospital inpatient care. IEEE Intell Syst 28(2):92–95
New South Wales Department of Justice (n.d.) NSW online registry—courts and tribunals. https://onlineregistry.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/content/nsw-supreme-district-local-courts-online-registry. Accessed 29 May 2017
Nine to Noon (2017) Is ACC “passing the buck” with prediction based evaluations? Radio New Zealand, 26 September. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201859974/is-acc-passing-the-buck-with-prediction-based-evaluations. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service (2011) Small claims online: a users guide. http://www.courtsni.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Northern%20Ireland%20Courts%20Gallery/Online%20Services%20User%20Guides/Small%20Claims%20Online%20User%20Guide.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017
Perry M (2017) iDecide: administrative decision-making in the digital world. Aust Law J 91:29–34
Picard R (1997) Affective computing. MIT Media Lab, Massachusetts
Posner R (2010) How judges think. Harvard University Press, Harvard
Quintanilla V (2012) Different voices: the role of gender when reasoning about the letter versus spirit of the law. Presentation at the Law and Society Conference, Honolulu, June 2012
Ramesh AN, Kambhampati C, Monson JRT, Drew PJ (2004) Artificial intelligence in medicine. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 84:334–338
Reid L (1972) The judge as lawmaker. J Soc Public Teachers Law 12(1):22–29
Schatsky D, Muraskin C, Gurumurthy R (2014) Demystifying artificial intelligence: what business leaders need to know about cognitive technologies. University Press, Deloitte
Schauer F (2010) Is there a psychology of judging? In: Klein DE, Mitchell G (eds) The psychology of judicial decision-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 103–121
Schubarth C (2016) Y combinator startup uses big data to invest in civil lawsuits. Silicon Valley Bus J, 24 August. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/blog/techflash/2016/08/y-combinator-startup-uses-big-data-to-invest-in.html. Accessed 29 May 2017
Searle J (2002) Can computers think? In: Chalmers D (ed) Philosophy of mind: classical and contemporary readings. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 669–675
Shakespeare W (16th Century) The merchant of Venice, Act IV, Sc1, ll2125-46
Silver D, Huang A, Maddison C, Guez A, Sifre L, Van Den Driessche G, Schrittweiser J (2016) Mastering the game of Go with deep neural networks and tree search. Nature 529(7587):484–489
Sinai Y, Alberstein M (2016) Expanding judicial discretion: between legal and conflict considerations. Harvard Negot Law Rev 21:221–277
Smartsettle One+ (2017) Smartsettle. http://www.smartsettle.com/home/products/smartsettle-one/. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
Smith M (2016). In wisconsin, a backlash against using data to foretell defendant’s futures. New York Times (online), 22 June. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/23/us/backlash-in-wisconsin-against-using-data-to-foretell-defendants-futures.html?_r=0. Accessed 30 May 2017
Soars J (2016) Draft procedural order for use of online dispute resolution technologies in ACICA rules arbitrations. The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration. https://acica.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/ACICA-online-ADR-procedural-order.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
Solms M (2013) “The unconscious” in psychoanalysis and neuropsychology. In: Akhtar S, O’Neill MK (eds) On Freud’s “The unconscious”. Karnac Books, London, pp 101–118
Solon O (2017) Killer robots? Musk and Zuckerberg escalate row over dangers of AI. The Guardian Australia, July 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/25/elon-musk-mark-zuckerberg-artificial-intelligence-facebook-tesla. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Sourdin T (2012) Decision making in ADR: science, sense and sensibility. Arbitrat Mediat 31(1):1–14
Sourdin T (2015a) Justice and technological innovation. J Judicial Adm 25:96–105
Sourdin T (2015b) The role of the courts in the new justice system. Yearb Arbitrat Mediat 7:95–116
Sourdin T (2016) Alternative dispute resolution, 5th edn. Thomson Reuters, Pyrmont
Sourdin T (2018, forthcoming) Judge v Robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision making. U New South Wales Law J 41(4)
Sourdin T, Cornes R (2016) Implications for therapeutic judging (TJ) of a psychoanalytical perspective to the judicial role. Int J Law Psychiatry 48:8–14
Sourdin T, Zariski A (eds) (2013) The multi-tasking judge: comparative judicial dispute resolution. Thomson Reuters
Spillius EB, Milton J, Garvey P, Couve C, Steiner D (2011) The new dictionary of Kleinian thought. Taylor & Francis, East Sussex
State v Loomis (2016) 881 N.W.2d 749. Leagle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/inwico20160713i48. Accessed 4 Feb 2018
State v Loomis (2017) Docket for 16-6387. Supreme Court of the United States. https://www.supremecourt.gov/docketfiles/16-6387.htm. Accessed 4 Feb 2018
Surden H (2014) Machine learning and law. Wash Law Rev 89:87–115
Susskind D, Susskind R (2015) The future of the professions. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Tamburro M (2012) The future of predictive coding—rise of the evidentiary expert. IMS ExpertServices. http://technology.findlaw.com/electronic-discovery/the-future-of-predictive-coding-rise-of-the-evidentiary-expert-.html. Accessed 30 May 2017
Tashea J (2016) New York considers “Textalyzer” bill to allow police to see if drivers were texting behind the wheel. ABA J, 1 October. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/newyork_distracted_driving_textalyzer_bill/. Accessed 30 May 2017
Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth)
Thibaut J (1978) Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Duke Law J 6:1289–1296
Thibaut J, Walker L (1975) Procedural justice: a psychological analysis. Erlbaum, New Jersey
Tierney J (2011) Do you suffer from decision fatigue? New York Times (online), 17 August. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1. Accessed 30 May 2017
Tirrell M (2017) From coding to cancer: how AI is changing medicine. CNBC, 11 May. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/11/from-coding-to-cancer-how-ai-is-changing-medicine.html. Accessed 30 May 2017
Tyler Technologies (2017) Modria. https://www.tylertech.com/solutions-products/modria. Accessed 31 Oct 2017
University of Otago (n.d.) Artificial intelligence and law in New Zealand. http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/research/ai/AI-Law/index.html. Accessed 30 Nov 2017
Van den Bos K, Van der Velden L, Lind A (2014) On the role of perceived procedural justice in citizens’ reactions to government decisions and the handling of conflicts. Utrecht Law Rev 10(4):1–26
Victoria University (n.d.) Professor John Zeleznikow. http://www.vu.edu.au/contact-us/john-zeleznikow. Accessed 30 May 2017
Vogel K (2017) Google critic ousted from think tank funded by the Tech Giant. New York Times (online), August 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/30/us/politics/eric-schmidt-google-new-america.html. Accessed 4 Dec 2017
Warren M (2015) Embracing technology: the way forward for the courts. J Judicial Adm 24:227–235
Weisstub DN, Pitz A, Burt RA (2016) Introduction—Robert A. Burt. Int J Law Psychiatry 48:1–7
Wheelis A (1959) Psychoanalysis and identity. Psychoanal Rev 46A:65–74
Whitbourn M (2015) NSW government trials online court for civil cases in Sydney. Sydney Morning Herald (online), 10 August. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/nsw-government-trials-online-court-for-civil-cases-in-sydney-20150807-giuig2.html. Accessed 30 May 2017
Wikipedia (2017) Rosalind Picard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Picard. Accessed 14 July 2017
Wilson T, Gilbert D (2008) Explaining away: a model of affective adaptation. Perspect Psychol Sci 3(5):370–386
Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E (n.d.) Family Winner: integrating game theory and heuristics to provide negotiation support. http://www.jurix.nl/pdf/j03-03.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017
Zeleznikow J, Bellucci E, Schild UJ, Mackenzie G (2007) Bargaining in the shadow of the law—using utility functions to support legal negotiation. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Stanford, California, 4–8 June 2007
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sourdin, T., Cornes, R. (2018). Do Judges Need to Be Human? The Implications of Technology for Responsive Judging. In: Sourdin, T., Zariski, A. (eds) The Responsive Judge. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 67. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1023-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-1022-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-1023-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)