Some court judges claim they would prefer to be judged by an artificial intelligence rather than by one of their own colleagues. This idea, in truth, is not as far-fetched as it might seem. With the new draft law (Disegno di legge, Ddl) on Artificial Intelligence, currently under discussion in the Italian Parliament, the use of algorithms at the bench is being given the green light for an initial entry into courtrooms. Italy is preparing to take a step forward in the field of justice. But is it the right time to delegate (even partially) judicial decisions to an algorithm? And more importantly, will AI in the future be capable of developing an ethical sense that allows it to judge the guilty
AI in the courts: what does the draft law provide
The draft law aims to regulate the use of AI in courts, with the objective of speeding up legal proceedings, reducing errors, and ensuring greater fairness in judicial decisions. The measure foresees the gradual introduction of AI tools into the judicial system for “desk office” tasks. Applications range from automated case law analysis to the prediction of possible rulings, and even the use of chatbots to facilitate communication between citizens and institutions.
One of the most debated aspects is the possibility for judges to use AI for suggestions on decisions to be made, based on precedents and a vast legal database. AI is still exempt from issuing verdicts and judging defendants directly (or rather, by machine).
The ethics of AI in justice: opportunities and risks
One of the most complex issues concerns the ethical sense in decisions made (or suggested) by artificial intelligence. On the one hand, AI can be programmed to ensure fairness and impartiality, but on the other, it is not immune to the biases inherent in the data it is trained on.
Filiberto Brozetti, professor of AI, Laws and Ethics at Luiss Guido Carli University, reminds that “the first entity to have biases is the human being. We have prejudices, preconditions, whereas the machine is more objective and could redirect our attention to things we hadn’t considered.”
According to Professor Brozetti, the inclusion of AI in the legal system is now inevitable, and not necessarily in a negative sense. “The tool will greatly benefit us in all those tasks it can perform better than we can, such as drafting activities,” he says, while emphasizing that “in others, where human sensitivity is required, we cannot delegate to the machine.”
Ethics and legal experts stress the need for strict regulations to prevent AI from becoming a double-edged sword. As Artificial Intelligence is starting to require specific legislations around the world (both in tribunals themselves or in general), it becomes clear that it is becoming increasingly permeating in daily activities. If it is not the time yet to include it in specific fields at full blast, it indeed is to think of its implications.
