Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The possibilities and limits of AI in Chinese judicial judgment

  • Open Forum
  • Published:
AI & SOCIETY Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) technology has brought new opportunities and challenges to the judicial field, which dramatically improves judicial efficiency and may even change the judiciary's way. The concept of judicial justice in the information age has a natural affinity with artificial intelligence. As artificial intelligence continues to make breakthroughs in judicial data sorting and deep learning knowledge, judicial artificial intelligence has gradually become a reality. Artificial intelligence can conduct legal argumentation, interpret calculation results, human–computer collaboration, and judicial judgment. At the same time, the development of artificial intelligence technology also has potential risks, such as algorithm black boxes, algorithm discrimination, etc., to help judges achieve judicial justice, the value of judicial justice should be pursued to the limit of its judicial application. Therefore, artificial intelligence justice should be constrained by social relations, legal rationality, and code operation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bai JJ (2017) The possibility and limits of referee prediction in the era of big legal data. Explor Debate 10:95–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bing J (1991) Legal text retrieval systems the unsatisfactory state of the art. Yearbook Law Comput Technol 2(1):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Branting K, Lester J, Callaway C (1998) Automating judicial document drafting: a discourse-based approach. Artif Intell Law 6:111–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan BG, Headrick TE (1970) Some speculation about artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Stanford Law Review 23(1):40–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen MG (2020) Goodness in things and judicial alienation: dialectical thinking of judicial artificial intelligence. J Chongqing Univ (Soc Sci Edn). https://doi.org/10.11835/j.issn.1008-5831.fx.2020.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coser LA (1997) Masters of sociological thought: ideas in historical and social context. Harcourt, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crootof R (2019) Cyborg justice and the risk of technological legal lock-in. Columbia Law Review Forum. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3464724

  • Feng J (2018) The challenge of artificial intelligence to judicial adjudication theory: response and limits. J East China Univ Political Sci Law 2:21–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Filippi P and Hassan S (2016) Blockchain technology as a regulatory technology: from code is law to law is code. First Monday Vol 21, N. 12, special issue on’ Reclaiming the Internet with distributed architectures

  • Gordon TF (1995) Pleading and answering game—an artificial intelligence model of procedural justice. Springer Science+Business Media BV, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Graaf MMAD (2017) An ethical evaluation of human-robot relationships. Int J Soc Robot 8:589–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He F (2017) How far are we from “Judge Alpha”? Zhejiang People’s Congress 5:47

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess C, Ostrom E (2007) Understanding knowledge as a commons: from theory to practice. The MIT Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Iliadis L, Andreou A, Papadopoulos H (2016) Artificial intelligence applications and innovations. Int J Eng Intell Syst Elect Eng Commun 18(4):123–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski ME (2019) The right to explanation, explained. J Berkeley Technol Law 34(1):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Krizhevsky A, Sutskever I, Hinton GE (2012) ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Presented Baotuan Nguyen Markham Anderson ECS 289G(1):18

    Google Scholar 

  • Li XN (2020) Trustworthy AI judicature: significance, challenges and governance responses. Law Forum 35(4):116–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo SZ (2017) Zhou Qiang emphasized at the Fourth National Court Informatization Work Conference: accelerating the construction of smart courts and advancing the modernization of the trial system and trial capabilities. People’s Court News, May 12, 2017, edition 001

  • Posner RA (2002) Economic foundations of private law. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebright P (2010) The company of strangers: a natural history of economic life-revised edition. The Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skitka LJ, Mosier KL, Baderick M (1999) Does automation bias decision-making? Int J Hum Comput Stud 51(5):991–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (1996) Legal reasoning and political conflict. The Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein CR (2008) Infotopia. The Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (2005) Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang JY (2020) Judicial big data and the realization of judicial justice. J Jishou Univ (soc Sci) 2:137–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber R (1999) Intelligent Jurisprudence Research: a new concept. In: ICAIL’ 99: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Artificial intelligence and law, June 1999:164–172

  • Xiong MH (2011) Legal logic method and realization of judicial justice. J Sun Yat-Sen Univ (soc Sci Edn) 51(5):143–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu YJ (2017) Viewing artificial intelligence and big data from a philosophical perspective. Compet Intell 13(5):19–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Ye Q (2017) Deep integration of artificial intelligence and judicial practice has a bright future. Jiefang Daily. https://doi.org/10.28410/n.cnki.njfrb.2017.003091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu XZ (2005) Artificial intelligence, discourse theory and rebuttable reasoning, legal methods and legal thinking (3rd series). The China University of Political Science and Law Press, Beijing

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang N, Yang SQ, Pu YF (2014) A review of foreign artificial intelligence and law research progress. Legal Methods 2:458–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang N, Xu JC (2019) Computational law: the intersection of law and artificial intelligence. Modern Law Sci 41(6):77–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuo WM (2020) From generalization to specialization: Rethinking the application of artificial intelligence in China's judicial system. Law Forum 35(2):17–23

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the reviewers for the beneficial suggestions that helped improve this paper.

Funding

This work was supported by the Project of “Criminal Judicial Determination of the Scope of Wildlife Protection” (Contract No. 2021030345), and Talent Introduction Project of “Research on the Application and Limitation of Artificial Intelligence in the Judicial Field,” fund by Sichuan University of Science and Engineering.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law and Intellectual Property, Sichuan University of Science and Engineering, Sichuan, China

    Zichun Xu & Zhongwen Deng

  2. School of Law, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China

    Yang Zhao

Authors
  1. Zichun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yang Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zhongwen Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhongwen Deng.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, Z., Zhao, Y. & Deng, Z. The possibilities and limits of AI in Chinese judicial judgment. AI & Soc 37, 1601–1611 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01250-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01250-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation