AI Accountability in Judicial Proceedings: An Actor–Network Approach

Francesco Contini (), Elena Alina Ontanu () and Marco Velicogna ()
Additional contact information
Francesco Contini: Institute on Lega Informatics and Judicial Systems, National Research Council of Italy, 40125 Bologna, Italy
Elena Alina Ontanu: Tilburg Law School, Tilburg University, Warandelaan 2, 5037 AB Tilburg, The Netherlands
Marco Velicogna: Institute on Lega Informatics and Judicial Systems, National Research Council of Italy, 40125 Bologna, Italy

Laws, 2024, vol. 13, issue 6, 1-18

Abstract: This paper analyzes the impact of AI systems in the judicial domain, adopting an actor–network theory (ANT) framework and focusing on accountability issues emerging when such technologies are introduced. Considering three different types of AI applications used by judges, this paper explores how introducing non-accountable artifacts into justice systems influences the actor–network configuration and the distribution of accountability between humans and technology. The analysis discusses the actor–network reconfiguration emerging when speech-to-text, legal analytics, and predictive justice technologies are introduced in pre-existing settings and maps out the changes in agency and accountability between judges and AI applications. The EU legal framework and the EU AI Act provide the juridical framework against which the findings are assessed to check the fit of new technological systems with justice system requirements. The findings show the paradox that non-accountable AI can be used without endangering fundamental judicial values when judges can control the system’s outputs, evaluating its correspondence with the inputs. When this requirement is not met, the remedies provided by the EU AI Act fall short in costs or in organizational and technical complexity. The judge becomes the unique subject accountable for the use and outcome of a non-accountable system. This paper suggests that this occurs regardless of whether the technology is AI-based or not. The concrete risks emerging from these findings are that these technological innovations can lead to undue influence on judicial decision making and endanger the fair trial principle.

Keywords: AI systems for justice; accountability; actor–network theory; AI Act; speech-to-text applications; legal analytics systems; predictive systems (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D78 E61 E62 F13 F42 F68 K0 K1 K2 K3 K4 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/6/71/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/13/6/71/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:13:y:2024:i:6:p:71-:d:1527731

Access Statistics for this article

Laws is currently edited by Ms. Heather Liang

More articles in Laws from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().