Justice Trends 2: Automated Justice Get the Gist of the future for technology in justice

Strategic Questions

This section contains a number of human generated and automatically-extracted queries as well as questions that could be considered in strategic planning.

  1. The current non-automated system is based on fallible human beings, so how does automation change this equation? Are the checks and balances maintained in the system?
  2. The legal industry is based on very binary principles (guilt or innocence, defense or prosecution), but the world is growing increasingly non-binary. Can the legal system be made more inclusive of diverse thinking at a fundamental level? What would a trans-legal system look like? Could such a system be more just than the current system? How could technology be used to address such a change? How would society respond to the lack of binary preferences?
  3. How could organizations or individuals exploit a lawyerless system?
  4. How do citizens see the Justice system evolving in the future?
  5. How will developments in one country affect others in a global world?

Auto-extracted Questions

  1. Simple évolution technique ou révolution culturelle?
    1. La centralisation informatique, une révolution culturelle?
    2. l' instauration d' un État Big Brother?
    3. Qui pourra avoir accès à quels dossiers?
    4. Quand les avocats verront-ils le changement?

    [translation] Mere technical evolution or cultural revolution?
    Is the centralization of IT a cultural revolution?
    The implementation of Big Brother?
    Who will be able to access which files?
    When will lawyers see change?

  2. If there is no objective dimension to legal knowledge, can there really be justice?
  3. Yet what if a robot judge is hacked? Or if evidence is hacked so as to frame a case or conflict?
  4. What if an increasing constituency in our society chose to believe that the justice system was biased against the new world that they live in and thus chose to reject it and reject the rule of law?
  5. What institutions or mechanisms can help us strike the right balance between maximising the benefits of AI and minimising its security risks?
  6. Can humans (e.g., witnesses) better identify subjects they see in video feeds, as opposed to or in addition to static mug shots and lineups? How would implicit biases in how witnesses view video be accounted for?
  7. How can courts address (the often naturally occurring) discrepancies between peoples’ statements and testimony on the one hand and video and other sensors on the other?
  8. To what extent is access to justice truly improved by cyberjustice when the "digital divide" is taken into account?
  9. How can the risks and hazards systematically produced as part of modernization be prevented, minimized, limited and distributed away so that they neither hamper the modernization process nor exceed the limits of that which is 'tolerable'?
  10. La transformation numérique ne doit pas transformer la justice. Digital transformation should not transform justice.
    1. Les chantiers de la justice Numérique, Procédure civile et Réseau des juridictions: le rationnel est-il toujours raisonnable? Work on digital justice, civil procedure and the network of jurisdictions: Is the reasoning still reasonable?
    2. La justice asservie par le numérique? Does digital constrain justice?
    3. Faut-il pour autant que chaque justiciable en paie le prix? Does this mean that every litigant pays the price?
    4. Naturellement, un tel principe est de nature à repenser profondément l'office de la cour d'appel car si les moyens sont figés, comment les prétentions pour-raient-elles évoluer? Naturally, such a principle leads to a fundamental rethinking of the function of the Court of Appeal because, if means are frozen, how can claims evolve?
    5. Dans ces conditions, comment les usagers les plus vulnérables pourront ils avoir accès au droit et le cas échéant au juge? Under these conditions, how can the most vulnerable users have access to justice and, where applicable, to a judge?
    6. Comment pourront-ils se constituer partie civile et demander réparation de leur préjudice après une agression, saisir le conseil des prud'hommes pour obtenir le paiement de leurs salaires impayés, demander une augmentation de la contribution à l'entretien et à l'éducation de leur enfant, obtenir un droit de visite et d' hébergement de leur enfant après une séparation la mainlevée de leur mesure de tutelle ...? How can users be a civil party and claim compensation for damage suffered after an assault, take their case to the labour courts to obtain payment for unpaid wages, seek an increase in contribution to the care and education of their child, secure visiting and accommodation rights after a separation or termination of their guardianship...?
    7. Quoi de mieux pour accentuer le déséquilibre par exemple entre un créancier institutionnel demandeur et un débiteur particulier défendeur? What better way to emphasize the imbalance between, for instance, an institutional creditor applicant and an individual debtor respondent?
    8. Vers qui ou vers quoi se tourneront ceux que ces mesures excluront de l'accès aux juges? Who or what will those whom these measures will exclude from access to judges turn to?
    9. Elle pose des questions sur le devenir du corps des directeurs des services de greffe: où allons-nous positionner les directeurs de greffe qui ont déjà du mal à exister avec des chefs de juridiction qui sont trop souvent omniprésents? This raises questions about the future of leaders in registry services: Where will we position registry leaders who already have trouble with heads of jurisdiction who too often are everywhere, all the time?
    10. Qu' en sera-t-il du corps de ces mêmes directeurs s'il y a moins de postes? What will happen to these leaders if there are fewer positions?

Fair Warning?

  1. Is it fair — or even legal — to trick people into talking to an AI system that effectively records all of its conversations?
  2. Should there be a requirement for non-human systems operating online or otherwise interacting with humans (for example, over the telephone) to identify themselves as such (a "Blade Runner law") to increase political security?
  3. What are the pros and cons of government policies requiring the use of privacy-preserving machine learning systems or defenses against adversarial examples and other forms of malicious use?

Lawyers

  1. What do clients want now and what will they want in future?
  2. What technological and other external change might affect the services that can be offered and requests demanded by clients?
  3. What, in your view, would a future-proofed law firm look like?
  4. Will software substitute for lawyers, or increase their earning power?

Criminals

  1. Should it come down to inmates to identify flaws in the prison's computer systems?
  2. If machines get smart enough to out-think people what would that mean for cybersecurity?
  3. Could the social engineering techniques we see being used in email scams at the moment be applied to more sophisticated technology like video chat?
  4. ..while Google's demonstration highlighted the benign uses of conversational robots, what happens when spammers and scammers get hold of them?
  5. Identity theft is a popular and profitable crime, yet how will its impact grow as justice embraces automation?
  6. How likely is it that the Sharing Economy will play an ever larger role in the economic life of society in the coming decades?