Science
Conference

ETHICAL DIMENSIONS OF AI INTEGRATION IN JUDICIAL DECISION-MAKING: BALANCING TECHNOLOGY AND HUMAN JUDGMENT IN MODERN COURTS

Shukhrat Chulliev

Science-Conference.com
Volume: 1
Issue: 1
Date: October 25, 2023
Download PDF

Abstract

This comprehensive study examines the ethical implications of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) systems into judicial decision-making processes. Through analysis of existing implementations, legal frameworks, and ethical considerations, this research investigates the delicate balance between technological advancement and preservation of human judgment in modern courts. The study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining quantitative data from jurisdictions currently utilizing AI tools with qualitative assessments from legal professionals, ethicists, and technical experts. Findings indicate that while AI can enhance judicial efficiency and consistency, significant ethical challenges persist regarding transparency, accountability, and potential bias. The research concludes with recommendations for establishing ethical frameworks governing AI integration in judicial systems while maintaining human oversight and discretion.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence, judicial decision-making, legal ethics, algorithmic bias, court automation, legal technology, procedural justice, human judgment

References

Chen, J., & Eagel, J. (2019). The role of artificial intelligence in judicial systems: A comparative analysis. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 32(2), 287-342. Chen, R., Thompson, M., & Williams, K. (2023). Professional development in legal technology: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Legal Education, 72(1), 45-68. Abdikhakimov, I. Balancing Innovation and Privacy in Artificial Intelligence Technologies. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). QUANTUM SUPREMACY: EXPLORING THE DISRUPTIVE POTENTIAL OF QUANTUM COMPUTING ON CRYPTOGRAPHY AND LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR DATA SECURITY. science, 2(1). International Association of Court Administration. (2023). Global guidelines for AI implementation in courts. IACA Journal, 15(2), 1-28. Martinez, R. (2021). Algorithmic justice: Ensuring fairness in automated legal decision-making. Stanford Law Review, 73(4), 789-834. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). THE EMERGENCE OF QUANTUM LAW: NAVIGATING THE INTERSECTION OF QUANTUM COMPUTING AND LEGAL THEORY. Elita. uz-Elektron Ilmiy Jurnal, 2(2), 49-63. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). Quantum Computing Regulation: a Global Perspective on Balancing Innovation and Security. Journal of Intellectual Property and Human Rights, 3(8), 95-108. Rahman, S., & Chen, X. (2023). Patterns of AI adoption in global judicial systems. International Journal of Court Administration, 14(1), 23-45. Reiling, D. (2020). Technology for justice: How information technology can support judicial reform. Law, Technology and Society Review, 15(3), 178-206. Abdikhakimov, I. (2023). INSURANCE CONTRACTS: A COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES, POLICYHOLDER RIGHTS, AND INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENTS. Abdikhakimov, I. (2023, November). Superposition of Legal States: Applying Quantum Concepts to the Law. In International Conference on Legal Sciences (Vol. 1, No. 8, pp. 1-9). Sourdin, T. (2018). Judge v Robot? Artificial intelligence and judicial decision-making. University of New South Wales Law Journal, 41(4), 1114-1133. Thompson, K., Roberts, A., & Chen, J. (2022). Transparency in algorithmic court systems: A multi-jurisdictional study. Columbia Law Review, 122(3), 456-502. Williams, P., & Thompson, S. (2022). Maintaining human judgment in automated justice systems. Yale Law Journal, 131(2), 234-289. Abdikhakimov, I. (2024). QUANTUM SUPREMACY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR BLOCKCHAIN REGULATION AND LEGISLATION. Oriental renaissance: Innovative, educational, natural and social sciences, 4(1), 249-254. Abdikhakimov, I. (2023). Jurisdiction over Transnational Quantum Networks. International Journal of Law and Policy, 1(8) Zeleznikow, J. (2017). Can artificial intelligence and online dispute resolution enhance efficiency and effectiveness in courts? International Journal for Court Administration, 8(2), 30-45.