According to a study conducted by Brian Flanagan, Guilherme Almeida, Daniel Chen & Angela Gitahi, titled The Rule of Law or the Rule of Robots? Nationally Representative Survey Evidence from Kenya:
The legitimacy of chatbot law clerks was explored through a nationally representative survey experiment in Kenya. This is particularly relevant due to the Kenyan judiciary’s interest in testing e-justice measures. The study aimed to address the criticism that experimental jurisprudence has mainly focused on W.E.I.R.D. populations (White Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic) which may not represent global trends accurately.
The research compared responses from four nationally representative cohorts totaling 2,246 individuals to different test cases involving human and artificial law clerks. Each case presented the same scenario but varied in terms of verdict alignment with the law’s text or purpose, as well as whether the legal analysis was conducted by a human or an artificial intelligence.
One of the scenarios involved the prohibition of bodabodas (bicycle or motorcycle taxis) in a shopping mall to prevent injuries to shoppers.
In a specific case, a man named Martin rode his bodaboda into a mall to stop a violent attack, violating the rule. The court, guided by legal research from a computer program, had to decide if Martin’s actions were lawful.
The results of the study indicated that there was no significant difference in the perceived legitimacy of legal interpretations assisted by AI or humans. Participants generally viewed decisions based on AI-generated legal research as equally legitimate as those based on human-authored research.
In an excerpt from Chief Justice Robots, the author discusses the implications of AI judges and their potential credibility compared to human judges. Despite initial skepticism, AI judges could offer impartiality, detailed reasoning, and efficiency in the legal system, potentially overcoming public distrust towards the current system.
The author suggests that AI judging may address issues of cost, bias, and inefficiency in the legal system, making it more accessible and fair for ordinary citizens. The advantages of AI judging, such as affordability and speed, could outweigh any initial concerns or resistance from the public.
