In today’s technology-addled life where people relentlessly utilize artificial intelligence in order to save time and optimalize the quality of work. However, this can sometimes cause moral questions. The recent status quo of some persons advocating for the use of A.I in the legal system, which has encountered appreciable disagreements, is an example. In this essay, I’m going to discuss both sides and sum up with my view.
Firstly, leaning to the side of people who came up with that idea, I deem that the underlying reasons are the unfairness of the justice system they have witnessed. Today’s justice is not all about right or wrong, but it’s also about money, society level, and how severe the situation is according to judges in order to be carried out in the court. Since judges are humans – those who are dramatically exposed to personal feelings and are easily controlled by peripheral stimuli – they will sometimes target a person as innocent or faulty depending on how they can benefit from that decision. That’s why there are other people, who have recognized that dispiriting truth, trying to seek a solution from A.I. Although A.I might not be as emotionally flexible as humans, it’s believed to be able to make reasonable decisions at a much higher rate. Also, it’s faster than humans, so even unpopular cases can be brought to light.
On the other hand, some people still hold a strong belief in the ability of available judges , and refuse to let A.I or any forms of technology join the legal system. The proximate cause is their doubts towards the moral correctness of it. They believe that if A.I can’t be teachers or doctors, they can’t be judges too. Moreover, they’re adamant that A.I can’t solve intricate cases where the category of the crimes are difficult to identify. Living in a world where justice is determined by metal brains and nonchalant hearts can be a bewildering and uncomfortable experience.
To sum up, in my standpoint, A.I can incorporate with human judges so as to reach a higher quality level of the justice systems. For example, while A.I can analyse the datas given and propound their opinions, humans, including judges and people associatied with the cases, can define the final answer. That way, not only will most time be saved, which is equivalent to more cases being carried out, but the moral rate of the consensuses will also be assured. With that logic, in the near future, it’s possible that A.I will be sent out to courts for practice for a better, more ideal world.