The Future of Justice with AI Judges

AI ruling: Trump v. Caroll?

Verdict: Lack of concrete evidence, so case dismissed!

As we stand on the brink of a new era in the judicial system, the introduction of AI judges brings forth a profound transformation. These digital arbiters, devoid of human bias, offer a promise of rationality and impartiality that could redefine the concept of justice.

• Unbiased Reasoning: An AI judge operates on pure logic, free from the emotional influences that can sway human judgment. This ensures a decision-making process that is fair and based solely on the facts presented.
• In Favor of the Accused: In cases where concrete evidence is lacking, an AI judge would likely lean towards a verdict that favors the accused. This stems from a fundamental principle of law: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

It’s important to remember that while AI judges are impartial, they do not possess the intricate understanding of human emotions that can sometimes be crucial in the courtroom. 

The Balance of Justice: AI vs. Human Judges

When considering the importance of rulings made by an AI judge versus those made by a human judge, it’s a question of prioritizing objectivity over subjectivity. An AI judge’s ruling, based on unbiased facts, offers a glimpse into a future where justice is administered without the risk of personal prejudices. 

Case presented to AI

A woman alleges she encountered the celebrity years earlier, with a photograph from a social event as the sole evidence. She states he was acquainted with her. In the photo, the celebrity appears alongside his then-wife while she is with her partner from that period. The celebrity refutes any personal knowledge of her.

In the late ’95 or early 96 on a late Thursday (during the sales rush for Christmas, New Year, Hanukkah, etc. or the sales period at a normally busy hour?), according to her, shops were empty, and so was the lady’s dressing room. It was left without an attendant, and she met a male celebrity at the entrance of a women only store buying a gift for one of his girlfriends in her twenties as was his typical taste at the time? (“Why would a celebrity personally visit Bergdorf for gift shopping, particularly for lingerie or anything, when they could easily have a personal shopper fulfill their needs? A simple request and the gifts would arrive, elegantly wrapped and ready.)

He supposedly asks her, an older and more experienced woman of 52 or 53 years, for advice. At the time she was older than him (he was 48 or 49 at the time). (The store, Bergdorf, was renowned for its shopping service and did not have any personal shoppers trained by the legendary Betty Halbreich come forward during this busy sales period? Even though he was already a celebrity then, no one approached him?!) He asks her for advice and takes her to the deserted lingerie floor to pick a gift. “Despite an audience (shoppers) and surveillance cameras, according to her, all were conspicuously absent. They were notably missing?”. And follows her into the vacant, unlocked dressing room. He then throws her against the wall SA or rapes her. According to her, it was late 95 or early 96, so the Q4 sales rush for Christmas or the start of year sales frenzy, on a Thursday evening, the one time professional women most commonly go shopping after a busy workday, when professional women would typically run to buy presents or secure a nice sale? (Was he giving a floor show to this packed female audience? Even the store could sue him for violating their rules?). 

So ‘Only two of them gallivant in the store to the lingerie section; sexual sparks fly; he follows her to the dressing room, which is conveniently open with no attendance in sight (against the store policy, the attendant goes for a coffee break, leaving the fitting room open, presumably for thieves to rob them blind?) and rapes her against the wall. The chemistry was so strong that a male macho celebrity did not say a word and just tore her tights with his bare hands, penetrating her first with fingers and then with his penis. No mention of panties. Was she wearing them? Did it not hinder the penetration, would he not have had to pull them down?

While this celebrity was assaulting her, she was screaming, and nobody heard her screams or did anything. Probably everybody was watching the free floor show provided by the accuser and accused. No tabloid picked up this celebrity’s ROMP in Bergdorf with sensational headlines.

Additionally, a witness for the defense, who worked as a shop assistant, testified that it was possible for the stores to be vacant and the locker rooms to be accessible without any attendants present. The security guard was also a witness for the defense who said there was the possibility of no CCTV. On the lingerie floor with the small, expensive, easily shoplifted items? Is this possible during rush hour, busy seasonal shopping, or sales periods? Bergdorf has been famous for its security since the 80s, and under no circumstances could there not be a security camera as people were notorious for stealing, and Bergdorf had installed all these security measures. 

Also, after the 90s, with the onset of the Anita Hill case, where a law for restitution came, women filing for compensation increased substantially or tripled, and men were even scared of sharing space or even lifts with women. 

To avoid such claims, Bergdorf separated the women’s stores and placed them across the road and further down the men’s shops in the early 90’s. 

She claims she has celebrity DNA on her clothes but does not mention his sperm. According to her, the celebrity pushed her to the wall in the dressing room, tore her tights with his bare hands, first with his finger, later with his penis, penetrated her, and raped her. She does not mention panties nor that he pulled them down for the penetration necessary for sexual intercourse. She keeps the dress according to her, throws away the torn tights, which were supposed to have his DNA, and never mentions the panties. “Surprisingly, the question of lack of panties or the supposed sperm was never mentioned. Isn’t sperm part of copulation? She only seems to have kept the dress, which is supposed to have unknown male DNA on the sleeve, but the judge does not admit it. But why was the sperm never mentioned or never asked by the accused lawyer or for the panties?

“The defense attorney failed to present trustworthy witnesses from the store who could have provided a detailed account of the reasons behind the segregation of the women’s and men’s sections in the early ’90s. Typically, the end and beginning of the year are bustling shopping periods due to holidays like Christmas, New Year, and Hanukkah, as well as sales. Especially on Thursday evenings, when working individuals often shop, attendants are unlikely to leave their locker rooms unmonitored.” 

Also, they would have been liable if the alleged incident had happened. Suing not only by the so-called accuser, what about the other shoppers to see witnessing a man walk into a female lingerie room? No woman would accept a man in a lingerie changing room in a women-only store. A man should be brain-dead to enter a female changing room, let alone assault a woman in that environment, especially in the 90s after Anita Hill. There is no factual evidence of CCTV, panties with sperm, torn tights with the accused bare hands DNA or sperm. 

‘And Celebrity is so braindead to jump a woman under the full view of CCTV, the store staff, security, and festive shoppers! Just so he leaves himself open to litigation and sued easily by any Tom, Dick, and Harry. When the mere thought of sharing an elevator alone with a woman could send shivers down the spine of any American man in the 90s, fearing a lawsuit.”

After Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas in 1991. Bush sanctioned the bill where victims of sexual assault, etc. have the right to seek compensation for damages, etc. Within a year, these complaints skyrocketed! 

The human judge awards her substantially. When the accused denies it, he is counter-sued for more money with absolutely no factual evidence, except they brought up the accused’s past as a womanizer and locker room recorded conversations of a private nature among men.” 

How would an AI Judge rule here? How would an AI judge rule without physical or concrete evidence?

In a hypothetical scenario where an AI is tasked with judicial decision-making, the AI would adhere strictly to the legal standards of evidence and due process. Here’s how an AI might approach the ruling:

Understanding Evidence:

The Key to Fair Verdicts

Deciding if someone has broken the law is like putting together a giant puzzle. Each piece of evidence is a part of the puzzle that can help show the whole picture.

What Counts as Evidence?

Physical Evidence: This is something you can touch or see, like a fingerprint or a video recording, shows what happened.

Witness Testimonies: accused and the accuser, other witnesses. They can help explain the pieces of the puzzle.

Other Clues: Sometimes, other hints, like text messages or emails, can provide more information about the case.

Why Concrete Evidence Matters: Imagine you’re accused of slashing someone’s tires, but there’s no video of you doing it, no knife in your hands, and nobody saw you near the car. It’s easier to say that you slashed the tires with solid proof.That’s why having strong evidence, like DNA or a video, is crucial in court. It’s like having a clear picture of you holding a knife next to one of the slashed tires.

How Would an AI Judge Look at the Evidence?

An AI judge is like a super smart computer that examines all the pieces without getting confused or jumping to conclusions.The AI judge will only guess if there’s clear evidence. It needs strong proof, just like you’d want someone to be sure before they blame you for taking the cookie.

In a Nutshell

Without clear evidence, an AI judge would say, “We can’t prove this person did it,” and they wouldn’t find them guilty based on guesses or feelings. It’s essential to uphold fairness by ensuring that consequences are reserved for those conclusively proven to have committed wrongdoing.This helps clarify the idea of evidence evaluation and its importance in court decisions.

The Presumption of Innocence:

• Fundamental Right: The presumption of innocence is a fundamental legal principle and a human right under various international treaties. It ensures that everyone charged with a crime is considered innocent until proven guilty.
• Burden on Prosecution: This principle places the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of the prosecution. They must provide clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed the crime.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt:

• Highest Standard of Proof: In criminal law, ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is the highest standard of proof. It requires that the evidence presented must be so conclusive and complete that there are no reasonable doubts regarding the guilt of the accused. source lawlessness
• Protection Against Wrongful Conviction: This high threshold is designed to protect individuals from wrongful convictions, ensuring that no one is deprived of liberty without compelling evidence of their guilt.

Challenges in Meeting the Standard Without Factual Evidence:

• Need for Concrete Proof: Without factual evidence, such as physical evidence, credible witness testimony, or forensic results, the AI would find it challenging to justify a conviction.
• Avoidance of Speculation: The AI would avoid speculation and conjecture. It would not fill gaps in the evidence with assumptions or inferences that are not strongly supported by facts.

Conclusion:

• Erring on the Side of Caution: In the absence of factual evidence, an AI judge would likely err on the side of caution, ruling in favor of the accused to prevent the possibility of an unjust conviction.
• Upholding Justice: By applying these legal standards, the AI would uphold the principles of justice, ensuring that only those who are proven guilty with substantial evidence are convicted.

Impartiality Defined: Impartiality in the judicial context means that judges should not allow their personal feelings, prejudices, or preferences to affect their decisions. They must treat all parties equally and fairly without giving undue advantage or disadvantage to any party based on irrelevant factors.

AI and Impartiality:

• Data-Driven Decisions: An AI judge would make decisions based on data and evidence presented during the trial. It would analyze this information using algorithms designed to objectively interpret and apply the law.
• Consistency: AI systems are consistent in their operation. They apply the same rules and criteria to every case, ensuring that similar cases receive similar treatment, which is a crucial aspect of fairness.
• No Personal History: Unlike human judges, AI judges have no personal history, emotions, or experiences that could subconsciously influence their judgment.
• Unaffected by Reputation: An AI judge would not consider the accused’s behavior or reputation because these are not directly related to the facts of the case. The focus would be on the incident and whether the evidence supports the charges against the accused.

Why Impartiality Matters:

• Trust in the Legal System: Impartiality is essential for maintaining public confidence in the legal system. “It is crucial for individuals to have confidence that they will receive impartial treatment and that the personal opinions of a judge will not influence the verdict.”
• Protection of Rights: Impartiality helps protect the rights of all individuals involved in legal proceedings. It ensures that decisions are made based on the law and the evidence, not on extrajudicial considerations.
• Prevention of Bias: By focusing solely on the evidence, an AI judge would prevent biases related to race, gender, socioeconomic status, or other irrelevant factors from creeping into the judicial process.

Challenges and Considerations:

• Programming and Design: The fairness of an AI’s judgment hinges on its programming and design, which must be meticulously crafted to exclude any biases inherent in its training data.”
• Transparency and Oversight: There must be transparency in how the AI makes decisions and oversight to ensure that the AI remains impartial and adheres to legal standards.

In conclusion, an AI judge represents an ideal of impartiality that is challenging to achieve in practice by human judges. While AI can provide objectivity and uniformity, it’s vital to acknowledge that its integration into the judicial system demands thoughtful deliberation to maintain the integrity of justice. AI judges can offer objectivity and consistency, so it is essential to recognize that the design and implementation of AI in the judicial system require careful consideration.

In essence, an AI judge would require clear, factual evidence to convict someone of a crime. It would not be influenced by external factors or the gravity of the accusations but would rely solely on the strength of the evidence presented in court.