Open AccessUSING THE CAPABILITIES OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLECT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Author(s) -
D.O. Chistilina
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
vestnik udmurtskogo universiteta. èkonomika i pravo
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2413-2446
pISSN - 2412-9593
DOI - 10.35634/2412-9593-2021-31-4-705-710
Subject(s) - intellect , process (computing) , computer science , adversarial system , element (criminal law) , punishment (psychology) , law , automation , robot , criminal justice , political science , artificial intelligence , engineering , psychology , epistemology , social psychology , mechanical engineering , philosophy , operating system
The article is devoted to the study of the possibilities of using artificial intellect in criminal proceedings. With the development of information technologies in various fields, the question of system automation is increasingly raised. The possibility of replacing human physical labor is not controversial, but intellectual labor is difficult to automate, as it often contains a creative element. In law, it is possible to use information technologies through the introduction of electronic document management, remote holding of court sessions, etc. However, the issue of automating decision-making remains open, especially in the criminal procedure sphere. The need to take into account the specifics of each criminal case, the individualization of punishment does not allow us to completely replace judges with robots. The implementation of such principles as the independence of judges and the adversarial nature of the parties in criminal proceedings will be difficult. The proof process will need to be reformed, taking into account the ability of the parties to provide proofs in electronic form, which may not be available due to the technical difficulties encountered by the parties and the court. In this case, the decision made by the robot judge will not meet the requirements imposed on such a decision by the law. Excluding the invaluable experience of the judge in sentencing is likely to lead to negative consequences for justice.