La imposibilidad de un juez.Realismo jurídico, inteligencia artificial y la búsqueda de un justo medio

  1. Dyango Bonsignore Fouquet
Revista:
Estudios penales y criminológicos

ISSN: 1137-7550

Año de publicación: 2023

Número: 44

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Estudios penales y criminológicos

Resumen

Este artículo contrasta dos líneas teóricas que han tendido a tensionar la labor judicial desde puntos de vista que, tal vez, cabría considerar contrapuestos. Por un lado, se recupera la clásica crítica del “realismo jurídico” que cuestiona la capacidad del juez para decidir con arreglo a las exigencias del ordenamiento jurídico. Aquí, el problema estriba en el carácter excesivamente “humano” del juzgador. Por otro lado, se da voz a la protesta inversa, surgida del debate en torno a las posibilidades de una inteligencia artificial judicial. En este contexto, las opiniones críticas han tendido a plantear que los algoritmos carecen de ciertas cualidades (estructurales y funcionales, pero también “sociológicas”) que imposibilitan la plena sustitución del juzgador humano. La “artificialidad” de la inteligencia es ahora el problema. Se reúnen ambas perspectivas con el propósito de determinar si, entre las presiones por la “abstracción” y la “humanización”, queda espacio alguno para un juez.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Amodio, D.M., & M. Cikara: “The Social Neuroscience of Prejudice”, Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 72, 2021, p. 439–69. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050928.
  • Atienza, M.: Curso de Argumentación Jurídica, Madrid, Trotta, 2013.
  • Bench-Capon, T.J.M., & Dunne P.E.: “Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 171, nº. 10–15, 2007, p. 619–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2007.05.001.
  • Berk, R.: Machine Learning Risk Assessments in Criminal Justice Settings, Springer, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02272-3.
  • Bonezzi, A., M. Ostinelli, & Melzner J.: “The Human Black-Box: The Illusion of Understanding Human Better Than Algorithmic Decision-Making.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 2022, p. 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001181.
  • Bonsignore Fouquet, D.: “Valoración Del Riesgo y Discrecionalidad Informada Del Juez: A Propósito Del Evidence-Based Sentencing y El Significado Del Error de Predicción.” Diálogos Jurídicos, vol. 5, 2020, p. 21–36.
  • Bourdieu, P. & Wacquant L.: Una Invitación a La Sociología Reflexiva, Buenos Aires, Siglo XXI, 2005.
  • Breger, M.L.: “Making the Invisible Visible: Exploring Implicit Bias, Judicial Diversity, and the Bench Trial”, University of Richmond Law Review, vol. 53, nº. 4, 2019, p. 1039–84.
  • Burrell, J.: “How the Machine ‘Thinks’: Understanding Opacity in Machine Learning Algorithms”, Big Data & Society, vol. 3, nº. 1, 2016, p. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951715622512.
  • Campos Zamora, F.J.: “Nociones Fundamentales Del Realismo Jurídico”, Revista de Ciencias Jurídicas, nº. 122, 2010, p. 191–220.
  • Chalfin, A. & Mccrary J.: “Criminal Deterrence: A Review of the Literature”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 55, nº. 1, 2017, p. 5–48. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.20141147.
  • Citron, D.K.: “Technological Due Process”, Washington University Law Review, vol. 85, nº. 6, 2007, p. 1249–1313.
  • Cormack, W.: “Reassessing the Judicial Empathy Debate: How Empathy Can Distort and Improve Criminal Sentencing”, Mitchell Hamline Law Review, vol. 47, 2021.
  • Cross, F.B.: “Decisionmaking in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals”, California Law Review, vol. 91, nº. 6, 2003, p. 1457–1515. https://doi.org/10.2307/3481397.
  • Decety, J.: “Why Empathy Is Not a Reliable Source of Information in Moral Decision Making”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 30, nº. 5, 2021, p. 425–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214211031943.
  • Drobak, J.N., & North D.C.: “Understanding Judicial Decision-Making: The Importance of Constraints on Non-Rational Deliberations”, Journal of Law & Policy, vol. 865, nº. 1988, 2004, p. 131–52.
  • Dworkin, R.: “Hard Cases”, Harvard Law Review, vol. 88, nº. 6, 1975, p. 1057–1109. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340249.
  • Eberhardt, J.L., Davies P.G., Purdie-Vaughns V.J., & Johnson S.L.: “Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes”, Psychological Science, vol. 17, nº. 5, 2006, p. 383–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x.
  • Edwards, L. & Veale M.: “Enslaving the Algorithm: From a ‘Right to an Explanation’ to a ‘Right to Better Decisions’?”, IEEE Security and Privacy, vol. 16, nº. 3, 2018, p. 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2018.2701152.
  • Frank, J.: Law and the Modern Mind, Stevens & Sons, 1949.
  • Gillman, H.: “What’s Law Got to Do with It? Judicial Behavioralists Test the ‘Legal Model’ of Judicial Decision Making”, Law & Social Inquiry, vol. 26, nº. 2, 2001, p. 465–504. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2001.tb00185.x.
  • Glynn, A.N., & Sen M.: “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women’s Issues?”, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 59, nº. 1, 2015, p. 37–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12118.
  • Gomes de sousa, W., Antunes fidelis R., De Souza Bermejo, P.H., Da Silva GONÇALO, A.G. & B. De Souza Melo: “Artificial Intelligence and Speedy Trial in the Judiciary: Myth, Reality or Need? A Case Study in the Brazilian Supreme Court (STF)”, Government Information Quarterly, vol. 39, 2022, p. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101660.
  • Grosan, C. & Abraham, A.: Intelligent Systems. A Modern Approach, Springer, 2011.
  • Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J. & Wistrich, A.J.: “Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases”, Cornell Law Review, vol. 93, nº. 1, 2007, p. 1–43.
  • Haba, E.P.: “Razones Para No Creer En La Actual Teoría (Ilusionista) de La Argumentación. Papel Que Tales Teorizaciones Cumplen Como Más Nueva Ideología de Legitimación Con Respecto, Especialmente, Al Discurso Jurídico Profesional”, Doxa Cuadernos de Filosofía Del Derecho, vol. 33, 2010, p. 321–60.
  • Harris, L.T. & Fiske, S.T.: “Dehumanizing the Lowest of the Low: Neuroimaging Responses to Extreme Out-Groups”, Psychological Science, vol. 17, nº. 10, 2006, p. 847–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x.
  • Hegtvedt, K.A., Johnson, C. & Watson, L.: “Social Dynamics of Legitimacy and Justice”, Handbook of Social Justice Theory and Research, Springer New York, 2016, p. 425–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3216-0_23.
  • Hulsman, L., & Bernat de celis, J.: Sistema Penal y Seguridad Ciudadana: Hacia Una Alternativa, Ariel, 1984.
  • Irwin, J.F. & Real, D.L.: “Unconscious Influences on Judicial Decision-Making: The Illusion of Objectivity”, McGeorge Law Review, vol. 42, nº. 1, 2008, p. 1–18.
  • Jin, Y. & He, H.: “An Artificial-Intelligence-Based Semantic Assist Framework for Judicial Trials”, Asian Journal of Law and Society, vol. 7, nº. 3, 2020, p. 531–40. https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.33.
  • Johnson, S.L., Hritz, A.C., Royer, C.E. & Blume, J.H.: “When Empathy Bites Back: Cautionary Tales from Neuroscience for Capital Sentencing”, Fordham Law Review, vol. 85, nº. 2, 2016, p. 573–98.
  • Kahneman, D.: Pensar Rápido, Pensar Despacio, Debate, 2012.
  • Katyal, S.K.: “Democracy & Distrust in an Era of Artificial Intelligence”, Daedalus, vol. 151, nº. 2, 2022, p. 322–34. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_01919.
  • Kleinberg, J., Lakkaraju, H., Leskovec, J., Ludwig, J. & Mullainathan, S.: “Human Decisions and Machine Predictions”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 133, nº. 1, 2018, p. 237–93. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjx032.
  • Knight, J.: “Are Empiricists Asking the Right Questions about Judicial Decisionmaking?”, Duke Law Journal, vol. 58, nº. 7, 2009, p. 1531–56.
  • Laporta San Miguel, F.J.: “La Creación Judicial y El Concepto de Derecho Implícito”, Revista Jurídica Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, nº 6, 2002, p. 133–52.
  • Leiter, B.: “Realismo Jurídico Estadounidense”, en FABRA ZAMORA, J.L. & NÚÑEZ VAQUERO, Á., Enciclopedia de Filosofía y Teoría Del Derecho, Vol. I, México, UNAM, Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, 2015, p. 241–76.
  • Mehozay, Y. & Fisher, E.: “The Epistemology of Algorithmic Risk Assessment and the Path towards a Non-Penology Penology”, Punishment and Society, vol. 21, nº. 5, 2019, p. 523–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474518802336.
  • Miles, T.J. & Sunstein, C.R.: “The New Legal Realism”, University of Chicago Law Review 75, nº. 2, 2008, p. 831–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781107762336.
  • Miller, T.: “Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 267, 2019, p. 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2018.07.007.
  • Monahan, J. & Skeem, J.L.: “Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing”, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, vol. 12, nº. 1, 2015, p. 489–513.
  • Muñoz Aranguren, A.: “La Influencia de Los Sesgos Cognitivos En Las Decisiones Jurisdiccionales: El Factor Humano. Una Aproximación”, InDret, nº. 2, 2011, p. 1–39.
  • Nieto, A. & Fernández, T.-R.: El Derecho y El Revés. Diálogo Epistolar Sobre Leyes, Abogados y Jueces, Ariel, 2006.
  • Oswald, M., Grace, J., Urwin, S. & Barnes, G.C.: “Algorithmic Risk Assessment Policing Models: Lessons from the Durham HART Model and ‘Experimental’ Proportionality”, Information and Communications Technology Law, vol. 27, nº. 2, 2018, p. 223–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600834.2018.1458455.
  • Papillon, K.: “The Court’s Brain: Neuroscience and Judicial Decision Making in Criminal Sentencing”, Court Review, vol. 48, nº. 1, 2013, p. 48–63.
  • Posner, R.A.: “What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does)”, Supreme Court Economic Review, vol. 3, 1993, p. 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1086/scer.3.1147064.
  • Rachlinski, J.J., Johnson, S.L., Wistrich, A.J. & Guthrie, C.: “Does Unconscious Racial Bias Affect Trial Judges?”, Notre Dame Law Review, vol. 84, nº. 3, 2009, p. 1195–1246.
  • Rau, A.S.: “Integrity in Private Judging”, South Texas Law Review, vol. 38, nº. 2, 1997, p. 485–540.
  • Richenson, J.A., & Trawalter, S.: “Why Do Interracial Interactions Impair Executive Function? A Resource Depletion Account”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 88, no. 6, 2005, p. 934–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.934.
  • Rissland, E.L., Ashley, K.D. & Loui, R.P.: “AI and Law: A Fruitful Synergy”, Artificial Intelligence, vol. 150, 2003, p. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0004-3702(03)00122-X.
  • Ronquillo, J., Denson, T.F., Lickel, B., Lu, Z.L., Nandy, A. & Maddox, K.B.: “The Effects of Skin Tone on Race-Related Amygdala Activity: An FMRI Investigation”, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, vol. 2, nº. 1, 2007, p. 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsl043.
  • Rudin, C.: “Please Stop Explaining Black Box Models for High Stakes Decisions”, Proceedings of NeurIPS 2018 Workshop on Critiquing and Correcting Trends in Machine Learning, 2018, p. 1–15.
  • Schultz, T.: “Arbitral Decision-Making: Legal Realism and Law & Economics”, Journal of International Dispute Settlement 6, nº. 2, 2015, p. 231–51.
  • Searle, J.R.: “Minds, Brains, and Programs”, Behavioural and Brain Sciences, vol. 3, no. 3, 1980, p. 417–57.
  • Sourdin, T.: “Judge v Robot? Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Decision-Making”, UNSW Law Journal, vol. 41, nº. 4, 2018, p. 1114–33.
  • Sourdin, T.: Judges, Technology and Artificial Intelligence. The Artificial Judge, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.
  • Spain Bradley, A.: “The Disruptive Neuroscience of Judicial Choice”, UC Irvine Law Review, vol. 9, nº. 1, 2018, p. 1–52.
  • Sunstein, C.R.: “Algorithms, Correcting Biases”, Social Researc, vol. 86, nº. 2, 2019, p. 499–511.
  • Sunstein, C.R.: “Governing By Algorithm? No Noise and (Potentially) Less Bias”, Duke Law Journal, vol. 71, nº. 6, 2022, p. 1175–1205. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3925240.
  • Surden, H.: “Machine Learning and Law”, Washington Law Review, vol. 89, nº. 1, 2014, p. 87–116.
  • Susskind, R.: Online Courts and the Future of Justice, Oxford University Press, 2019.
  • Taruffo, M.: “Judicial Decisions and Artificial Intelligence”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, vol. 6, 1998, p. 311–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9010-5_7.
  • Varona, D., Lizama-Mue, Y. & Suárez, J.L.: “Machine Learning’s Limitations in Avoiding Automation of Bias”, AI and Society, vol. 36, no. 1, 2021, p. 197–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-00996-y.
  • Volokh, E.: “Chief Justice Robots”, Duke Law Journal, vol. 68, nº. 6, 2019, p. 1136–92.
  • Washington, A.L.: “How to Argue with an Algorithm: Lessons from the COMPAS- ProPublica Debate”, The Colorado Technology Law Journal, vol. 17, nº. 1, 2019, p. 1–37.
  • Wheeler, M.E. & Fiske, S.T.: “Controlling Racial Prejudice: Social-Cognitive Goals Affect Amygdala and Stereotype Activation”, Psychological Science, vol. 16, nº. 1, 2005, p. 56–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00780.x.
  • Winter, C.K.: “The Challenges of Artificial Judicial Decision-Making for Liberal Democracy”, en BYSTRANOWSKI, P., JANIK, B., AND PRÓCHNICKI, M. (eds.), Judicial Decision-Making: Integrating Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives, Springer, 2022, p. 179–204.
  • Wisser, L.: “Pandora’s Algorithmic Black Box: The Challenges of Using Algorithmic Risk Assessments in Sentencing”, American Criminal Law Review, vol. 56, 2019, p. 1811–32.
  • Wistrich, A.J. & Rachlinski, J.J.: “Implicit Bias in Judicial Decision Making. How It Affects Judgment and What Judges Can Do About It”, Enhancing Justice, American Bar Association, 2017, p. 87–130.
  • Wistrich, A.J., Rachlinski, J.J. & Guthrie, C.: "Heart versus Head: Do Judges Follow the Law or Follow Their Feelings?", Texas Law Review, vol. 93, 2015.
  • Woodruff, A., Anderson, Y.A., Armstrong, K.J., Gkiza, M., Jennings J., Moessner, C., Viegas, F. ET AL.: “‘A Cold, Technical Decision-Maker’: Can AI Provide Explainability, Negotiability, and Humanity?”, 2020, 1–23.
  • Xu, Z.: “Human Judges in the Era of Artificial Intelligence: Challenges and Opportunities”, Applied Artificial Intelligence, vol. 36, nº. 1, 2022, p. 1025–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/08839514.2021.2013652.
  • Xu, Z., Zhao, Y. & Deng, Z.: “The Possibilities and Limits of AI in Chinese Judicial Judgment”, AI and Society, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01250-9.
  • Yalcin, G., Themeli, E., Stamhuis, E., Philipsen, S. & Puntoni, S.: “Perceptions of Justice By Algorithms”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09312-z.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet