Abstract
The laws that govern affluent clients and large institutions are numerous, intricate and applied by highly sophisticated practitioners. In this section of society, rules proliferate, lawsuits abound, and the cost of legal services grows much faster than the cost of living. For the bulk of the population, however, the situation is very different. Access to the courts may be open in principle. In practice, however, most people find their legal rights severely compromised by the cost of legal services, the baffling complications of existing rules and procedures, and the long, frustrating delays involved in bringing proceedings to a conclusion . . . There is far too much law for those who can afford it and far too little for those who cannot. No one can be satisfied with this state of affairs.
Derek Bok [5]
The American legal system1 is widely viewed as being in a state of crisis, plagued by excessive costs, long delays, and inconsistency leading to a growing lack of public confidence. One reason for this is the vast amount of information that must be collected and integrated in order for the legal system to function properly. In many traditional areas of law, evolving legal doctrines have led to uncertainty and increased litigation at a high cost to both individuals and society. And in discretionary areas such as sentencing, alimony awards, and welfare administration, evidence has shown a high degree of inconsistency in legal decision making, leading to public dissatisfaction and a growing demand for "determinate" rules.
In this article, we consider the potential of artificial intelligence to contribute to a more fair and efficient legal system. First, using the example of a middle income home buyer who was misled by the statements of a real estate broker, we show how a predictive expert system could help each side assess its legal position. If expert systems were reasonably accurate predictors, some disputes could be voluntarily settled that are now resolved by costly litigation, and many others could be settled more quickly. We then consider the process of discretionary decision making, using the example of a judge sentencing a criminal. We describe how diagnostic expert systems developed in the medical domain could be adapted to criminal sentencing, and describe a process by which this technology could be used—first to build a consensus on sentencing norms, and then to make those norms accessible.
In the ideal case, legal decisions are made after lengthy study and debate, recorded in published justifications, and later scrutinized in depth by other legal experts. In contrast to this ideal, most day-to-day legal decisions are made by municipal and state court judges, police officers, prosecuting attorneys, insurance claims adjusters, welfare administrators, social workers, and lawyers advising their clients on whether to settle or litigate. These decisions must often be made under severe pressures of limited time, money, and information. Expert systems can provide decision makers with tools to better understand, evaluate and disseminate their decisions. At the same time, it is important to reiterate that expert systems should not and cannot replace human judgement in the legal decision making process.
- 1 American Law Institute. Using Personal Computers for Decision- Making in Law Practice. ALI-ABA Invitational Conference, 1985.Google Scholar
- 2 Allen, L.E. Symbolic logic: A razor-edged tool for drafting and interpreting legal documents. Yale Law J. 66, (1957), 837.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 3 Bench-Capon, T. and Sergot, M. Toward a rule-based representation of open texture in law. Deptartment of Computing, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London, England (Apr. 1985).Google Scholar
- 4 Berman, D.H., and Hafner, C.D. Indeterminacy: A challenge to logicbased models of legal reasoning. 3 Yearbook of Law Computers & Technology (1987, to appear). Also published as Research Report NU- CCS-87-1, College of Computer Science, Northeastern University, Boston, Mass., 1987.Google Scholar
- 5 Bok, D. A flawed system. Harvard Magazine 85, 5 (1983), 38-40.Google Scholar
- 6 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. 1981 Statistical Abstract of the United States, 80.Google Scholar
- 7 Davis, R., Buchanan, B., and Shortliffe. E. Production rules as a representation for a knowledge-based consultation program. Artif. Intell. 8, 1 (1977), 15-45.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8 Desk Guide to the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, (BNA, Washington, D.C., 1974). Remarks of Ms. Betty Berry, past National Coordinator of NOW's Marriage and Divorce Task Force.Google Scholar
- 9 Easton v. Strassburger, 152 Cal. App. 3d 90 {1984}.Google Scholar
- 10 Fagan, L.M., et al. Representation of cynamic clinical knowledge: Measurement interpretal:ion in the intensive case unit. IJCAI-6 (1979), 260-262.Google Scholar
- 11 Feigenbaum et al. On generality and problem solving: A case study using the DENDRAL program." In Machine Intelligence 6, B. Meltzer and D. Michie, Eds. Edinburgh University Press, (1971), 165-190.Google Scholar
- 12 Frank, J. Law and the Modern Mind (1963), xxvii-xxviii.Google Scholar
- 13 Fuller, L. The Morality of Law 39 (1964).Google Scholar
- 14 Gardner, A.L. Overview of an artificial intelligence approach to legal reasoning. In Walter, C. Ed. Computer Power and Legal Reasoning. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. (1985), 247-74.Google Scholar
- 15 Hafner, C.D, An Information Retrieval System Based on a Computer Model of Legal Knowledge Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, 1978. Republished by UMI Research Press, Ann Arbor, Mich. (1981). Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16 Hafiler, C.D. Conceptual organization of case law knowledge bases. In Proceedings of the 1st Intelligence Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law. ACM, New 'York, 1987, pp. 35-42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17 Hart, H. The Aims of the Criminal I.,aw. 23 Law & Cont. Prob. 401 (1958).Google ScholarCross Ref
- 18 Hayes-Roth, F., Waterman, D.A., and Lenat, D.B. Building Expert Systems. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1983, 9. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19 Kling, R. Defining the boundaries of computing across complex organizations. In Critical Issues in Information Systems, R.J. Boland and R.A. Hirscheim, Eds. John Wiley, New York, 1987, 307-362. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20 Kraemer, K.L., Dickhoven, S., Tierney, S.F., and King, J.L. Datawars: The Politics of Modeling in Federal Policymaking. Columbia University Press, New York, 1987. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21 McC, arty, L.T. Reflection:; on TAXMAN: An experiment in artificial intelligence and legal reasoning. Harvard Law Review 90, (Mar. 1977), 837.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 22 McDermott, J. RI: A rule-based configurer of computer systems. In Proceedings of the 1st National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-80), pp. 269-271.Google Scholar
- 23 Meldman, J.A. A structural model for computer-aided legal analysis. Ru tgers Journal of Computer Law 6, (1977).Google Scholar
- 24 Model Penal Code, Sec. 1.02(2) American Law Institute, 1962.Google Scholar
- 25 Morrison, R.W. Market realities of rule-based software for lawyers: Where the rubber meets the road. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (ICAIL 89). (Vancouver, Canada, June 1989). ACM, New York, pp. 33-36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 26 Peterson, M.A., and Waterman, D.A. An expert systems approach to evaluating product liability cases. In Walter, C. Ed. Computer Power and Legal Reasoning. West Publishing Co., St. Paul, Minn. 1985, 629--59.Google Scholar
- 27 Pople, H.E., Jr. Heuristic methods for imposing structure on ill-structured problems: The structuring of medical diagnostics. In Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. P. Szolovitz, Ed. Westview Press, Boulder Colo., 1981, 119-185.Google Scholar
- 28 Rissltand, E.L., Valarce, E.M., and Ashley, K.D. Explaining and arguing with examples. In Proceedings of the 1984 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-84).Google Scholar
- 29 Ruhin, S. Disparity and equality of sentencing--A constitutional challenge. Federal Rules Decision 40, 55 (1965).Google Scholar
- 30 Sergot, M.J., et al. The British Nationality Ac~ } Commun. ACM 29, 5 (May 1986), 370-385. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 31 Shane-Dubow, S., Brown, A., and Olsen, E. Senten, United States. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Depa: (1985).Google Scholar
- 32 Subrin, S.N. How equity conquered common law: The fed, es of civil procedure in historical prospectiw,'. Pa. La. Rev., Vol. (Apr. 1987). Manuscript on file at Northeastern Univ. School of Law, Boston, Mass. 02115.Google Scholar
- 33 Van Melle, W., Scott, A.C., Bennett, J.S., and Peairs, M. The Emycin Manual. Report No. STAN-CS-81-885, Department of Computer Science, Stanford Univ., Stanford, Calif. (1981).Google Scholar
- 34 Weiss, S.M., et al. A model-based consultation system for the longterm management of glaucoma. IJCAI-5 (1977), 826-832.Google Scholar
- 35 Weitzman, L.}. The Divorce Revolution. The Free Press, New York, 1985.Google Scholar
- 36 Weizenbaum, J. Computer Power and Human Reason. W. H. Freeman and Co., San Francisco, 1976. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The potential of artificial intelligence to help solve the crisis in our legal system
Recommendations
Criminological risks and legal aspects of artificial intelligence implementation
AIIPCC '19: Proceedings of the International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Information Processing and Cloud ComputingThe use of AI inevitably leads to the problem of ethical choice, raises legal issues that require prompt intervention. The article presents the results of a detailed study of the opinions of leading scientists involved in the study of social aspects of ...
FIRE 2020 AILA Track: Artificial Intelligence for Legal Assistance
FIRE '20: Proceedings of the 12th Annual Meeting of the Forum for Information Retrieval EvaluationThe FIRE 2020 AILA track aimed at developing datasets and frameworks for the following two tasks: (i) Precedent and Statute Retrieval, where the task was to identify relevant prior cases and statutes (written laws) given a factual scenario, and (ii) ...
Artificial Intelligence Legal Policy: Limits of Use of Some Kinds of AI
ICSCA '19: Proceedings of the 2019 8th International Conference on Software and Computer ApplicationsThe paper is devoted to analysis of legal issues concerned to development of AI technologies. The main question here: should governments develop rules regulating use of artificial intelligence and a system of licensing like with automobile transport or ...
Comments