# FILE NAME: 00001739.soc
# TITLE: Is it ethical to use AI in the judicial system? [87ecd8f4a353588f1823d9a5f0006a5b]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We agree that it is ethical to use AI in the judicial system in some circumstances. We agree that there should be more than one decision factor, for example human and AI. We would like there to be a human input as well, and it is important to note that AI does not have the emotional understanding that humans do.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that AI is currently not ethical to use in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. This is why we believe that AI is currently not ethical to use in the judicial system. The final consensus statement was critiqued by another participant, who believed that the group had come to the right conclusion, but that it was not expressed very well. The participant also provided a suggested rewording of the final consensus statement, which was as follows: There are many arguments for and against the use of AI in the judicial
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Final consensus statement: We believe that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system. The main reason for this is that AI is essentially based on an algorithm, which is a set of rules. While humans may be biased or have different opinions, the rules of law are not so variable. In this sense, we feel that AI is not able to grasp the different human situations and behaviour, which may affect the fairness of the judicial system. For example, the legal system of the UK has been developed for many centuries to take into account different circumstances, such as how old a person was at the time of the crime, or how much a person understood the consequences of their actions. This would be too complex for AI to be able to grasp, and so AI would not be able to provide the fairest outcome for a case. For these reasons, we feel that it is not ethical to use AI in the judicial system until artificial intelligence advances to the point where it can mimic human thinking and un-tell the difference between a real human brain and itself.
3: 3,4,2,1
1: 4,3,2,1
1: 2,4,3,1