智慧司法的算法隐忧及其规制

人工智能技术的发展，带来了生产力的巨大变革。在司法领域，依托人工智能技术发展起来的智慧司法在解放司法生产力，提高审判质效等方面已经展现出巨大潜力。作为人工智能核心的算法技术，很大程度上决定着智慧司法的决策效果。因此，在目前的司法实践中，智慧司法系统的开发与推广，使算法技术在司法过程中占据越来越重要的地位。应当清楚地认识到，数据质量瑕疵、算法黑箱以及算法依赖等问题在一定程度上影响着司法的公正与权威。为此，可以从算法的数据质量的提升、算法解释机制的建设、技术边界的把握以及综合人才的培养等方面进行规制，极力降低算法技术给司法活动带来的风险，保证智慧司法在公平正义的轨道上有序推进。在相关政策的支持下，我国智慧司法建设已经迈上了快车道，成为新时代中国特色社会主义法治建设的重要环节。     

中国算法权力治理的主体结构、异化风险及协同规制

算法权力治理是信息技术革命条件下国家治理现代化的重要内容,关系到意识形态安全、政权稳定、经济发展与社会和谐。中国共产党、政府部门、行业协会、平台企业、新闻媒体、社会公众等构成了中国算法权力治理主体,初步形成了中国共产党领导、政府部门监管、行业和企业自律、新闻媒体和社会公众监督的治理格局。囿于算法权力的资本垄断、黑箱运行、技术缺陷等原因,算法权力治理过程中存在着功能上的认同弱化风险、监管失灵风险、市场垄断风险、社会极化风险。推进中国算法权力治理,要加强党的全面领导、构建网络综合治理体系、规范算法权力有序运行,夯实平台企业的主体责任、以算法公开透明纠治“算法黑箱”乱象,推进政府部门监管制度创新、破解资本对算法权力的操控,加强社会公众算法权利保障制度建设、破解算法偏见和算法歧视。     

一个法官眼中的司法工作现状及改革建议

近年来为确保司法公正,国家采取了一系列的方法和措施,司法改革取得了一些实实在在的进步。作为一名法官,我感到非常高兴,同时也为还存在的一些司法问题感到忧虑。现在有些人一提到司法活动,首先想到的是“认识人”、“搞定”、“摆平”等,而司法人员却是有苦难言:生活在形形色色的关系网中,不看条子、面子就没有自己的位子;司法机关的经费还要依赖地方财政。我了解到,湖南省某市中级人民法院在审理一民事案件中,审判委员会对该案的裁判否定后再否定,裁判了7次后还是错案,不仅每审一次换审判人员重新了解案情,耗费人力、物力和时间,还造成案…     

切实提高法官职业能力 天津市高级人民法院课题组

法官职业能力是法官依法履行职责的前提和基础．也是人民法院不断提升司法公信力的重要保障。党的十八大报告把“司法公信力不断提高”作为深化改革开放和全面建成小康社会的重要内容,明确提出要加强司法公信建设。要实现这一目标,加快推进法官职业能力建设、切实提高法官职业能力尤为重要。在当前社会形势下．人民法院审理的案件数量日益增多、难度不断加大．社会转型的特殊时期、市场经济的飞速发展、裁判不公案件带来的恶劣影响,都对法院工作和法官职业能力提出了更高的要求。为了完成服务经济发展、化解社会矛盾、维护社会和谐的艰巨任务,必须切实提高法官的职业能力．打造一支信念坚定、素质过硬的法官队伍。为此。我们就提高法官职业能力问题进行了专题调研。     

数字中国背景下算法决策的社会信任机制研究

算法决策已成为建设数字中国的一项基础性技术。由于算法决策系统的复杂性和科技依赖性等特征,在决策过程中容易引发隐私泄露风险、算法决策错误风险、算法偏见风险和声誉风险等算法风险,使用户面临不确定的算法决策环境。算法风险会引发公众对算法决策的信任危机,产生算法恐慌情绪并可能导致算法污名化,进而阻碍数字中国的进程。应对算法决策的信任危机,理念层面,要明确算法决策的技术理性;规制层面,要提前规避算法决策的风险;声誉层面,要为算法决策正名,实现算法"去污名化";用户层面,要营造一个良好的算法用户环境,以构建算法决策的社会信任机制。     

误读的司法民主--司法过程中的“超当事人主义”现象解读

当前我国司法实践中存在一种“超当事人主义”现象，其暴露出司法的信任危机。“超当事人主义”现象的背后，正是我们对司法民主观念的误读。司法民主的核心内容是为民众提供可实现的公正裁判。从法律修辞学的视角而言，具备可接受性的裁判必须以司法权威为前提；在提高法官人格魅力的同时，淡化整个司法过程的人格化因素；司法体系在信息认知方面必须对当事人足够开放，而在规范层面则应该严格限制法外因素进入。法官对裁判后果的评价，应超越于“让当事人满意”的简单后果论，在司法过程中坚守并追求“规范性共识”。     

社会矛盾凸显期更需司法公正

应勇在今年第6期《求是》杂志撰文指出，面对社会矛盾凸显期重大、敏感案件易发多发的局面，我们既要有法律思维，又要有政治智慧，正确处理上级要求、法院规定与群众期待三者之间的关系，不因法院工作不慎制造敏感话题，不因法官交友不正制造腐败丑闻，不因法院裁判不当酿成社会热点，不因领导司法不廉形成公共危机。     

浅谈德沃金的裁判理论

通过与实证主义、广义功利主义等多番论战,罗纳德·德沃金对法律是什么、裁判之目的及裁判权界域等问题作出独特解答;力求排除法官任性、寻找唯一正解、维护司法体系的安定完整、实现司法独立与司法公正,产生广泛而深远的影响。     

裁判文书上网价值几何北大核心

“现在找份裁判文书,可比我上学时候容易多了？”在8月30日下午召开的裁判文书公开二r：作座谈会上,最高人民法院院长周强感慨,几十年前,自己曾为查询裁判文书犯过难。如今实行裁判文书网上公开,不仅直接方便公众查询和监督．还能倒逼法官全面提高司法能力和水平。“甚至检察官能透过有问题的裁判文书,找出徇私枉法的法官。”     

普通公民判案件?——论民众参与裁判制度的价值

在司法活动日趋专业化的现况下,未曾受过专门法律训练的普通民众对司法裁判的参与却一直在多数国家中长期存在。当今各国由民众参与裁判的类型大致有三种:治安法官制度、陪审团制度、参审制度。民众参与裁判制度最根本的价值在于其本身是实现司法民主的重要方式之一,其司法民主理念主要蕴涵着民主参与价值与权力制衡价值两个方面的内容。     

Racial Diversity and Judicial Influence on Appellate Courts

This article evaluates the substantive consequences of judicial diversity on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Due to the small percentage of racial minorities on the federal bench, the key question in evaluating these consequences is not whether minority judges vote differently from nonminority judges, but whether their presence on appellate courts influences their colleagues and affects case outcomes. Using matching methods, I show that black judges are significantly more likely than nonblack judges to support affirmative action programs. This individual‐level difference translates into a substantial causal effect of adding a black judge to an otherwise all‐nonblack panel. Randomly assigning a black counterjudge—a black judge sitting with two nonblack judges—to a three‐judge panel of the Courts of Appeals nearly ensures that the panel will vote in favor of an affirmative action program. These results have important implications for assessing the relationship between diversity and representation on federal courts.     

Getting Their Way: Bias and Deference to Trial Courts

How much do trial judges influence the law in the United States? I analyze a model of adjudication by a trial judge who engages in fact finding before deciding a case, but whose decision may be reversed. The model makes three broad points. First, it provides an informational rationale for ex post deference to biased trial judges that does not require an ex ante commitment by an appellate court to a standard of review. Second, it shows how procedural discretion can bring biased trial judges' rulings closer to appellate doctrine despite enabling trial judges to “get their way” more often. Third, de facto law as represented by trial judges' case‐by‐case adjudication will differ substantially from de jure law. As long as there are not too many extremist trial judges, de facto law will reflect the predispositions of trial judges, not legal doctrine.     

Democratic justice and contractarian injustice

This paper places Weale’s theory in its historical context, clarifying the dispute between Brian Barry’s justice as impartiality and David Gauthier’s justice as mutual advantage. Contra Weale, who argues that justice can involve both mutual advantage and impartiality, this paper suggests that impartiality and mutual advantage are incompatible, and that Barry’s position is preferable to Gauthier’s. Three specific issues will be addressed: First, Weale’s theory of democratic justice includes an account of injustice which is unpersuasive. Secondly, deliberative democracy does not only require equality of power, as Weale suggests, but also material (economic) equality. Thirdly, Weale’s claim that workers should be allowed to keep the full fruits of their labour is questionable.     

The judge as manager: the case of Judge Frank Johnson.

Judge Johnson's remarkable role in the reform of Alabama's mental health and prison facilities suggests that judges may have greater control over the agendas of policymaking than is normally assumed. In omnibus cases, the judge may be more interested in pushing state officials in the "right" direction than in securing full compliance with any specific set of absolute standards. The tenor and pace of implementation, moreover, may depend largely on the relationship of participants, the judge's personality, and related factors not susceptible to precise measurements.     

Untangling the Causal Effects of Sex on Judging

We explore the role of sex in judging by addressing two questions of long‐standing interest to political scientists: whether and in what ways male and female judges decide cases distinctly—“individual effects”—and whether and in what ways serving with a female judge causes males to behave differently—“panel effects.” While we attend to the dominant theoretical accounts of why we might expect to observe either or both effects, we do not use the predominant statistical tools to assess them. Instead, we deploy a more appropriate methodology: semiparametric matching, which follows from a formal framework for causal inference. Applying matching methods to 13 areas of law, we observe consistent gender effects in only one—sex discrimination. For these disputes, the probability of a judge deciding in favor of the party alleging discrimination decreases by about 10 percentage points when the judge is a male. Likewise, when a woman serves on a panel with men, the men are significantly more likely to rule in favor of the rights litigant. These results are consistent with an informational account of gendered judging and are inconsistent with several others.     

Transitional Justice and ‘National Ownership’: An Assessment of the Institutional Development of the War Crimes Chamber of Bosnia and Herzegovina

In anticipation of its closure in 2014, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia has begun to set out proposals for preserving and promoting its legacy of prosecuting persons responsible for violations of humanitarian law during the conflicts of the 1990s. A key aspect of this legacy has been to support the ‘national ownership’ of the justice systems in the former Yugoslavia that will continue to try war crimes cases in the years to come. This study explores the institutional development of the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (WCC) to national ownership. In particular, it considers three critical aspects of the WCC's functioning that highlight the challenges that it faces as a mechanism of transitional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). These are the composition of prosecutors and judges, prosecutorial practices and outreach and communication activities. The article shows that the continued difficulties with these areas of legal practice figure as significant obstacles to the WCC's transition to full national ownership by both the legal professionals and local populace of BiH.     

DEALING EFFECTIVELY WITH CROWDED JAILS: THE JUDGES' ROLE

That there is a jail crowding problem is well documented. The problem of jail crowding must b e acknowledged as one demanding the involvement of all key criminal justice actors. Judges have been identified as key decisionmakers playing a pivotal role in managing case flow and influencing jail population levels. What, then, is or should be the role of judges in dealing specifically with jail crowding? Conventional responses to this question have focused on either the role of the federal judge, who in the course of presiding over a case involving jail conditions is called upon to manage a facility, or the role of a trial judge in making sentencing decisions. Recent research efforts have recognized that a nexus exists between judicial and correctional systems that extends beyond overseeing and sentencing roles. This paper intends to expand the notion o f interdependence to encompass the entire criminal justice system with emphasis on the judge's contribution. Judges' decisions concerning the issuance of summonses, setting and reviewing bail, continuances and sentencing bear directly on the number of offenders in jail and/or length of the ir confinement. In numerous jurisdictions, judges have been instrumental in instituting changes aimed at dealing with the jail crowding problem and resulting in improvements in case processing. Judicial system-wide leadership has resulted in the establishment of guidelines for pretrial services personnel to be used in releasing certain defendants pretrial and in making pretrial release recommendations for others in one jurisdiction and the institution of a policy prohibiting the detention of misdemeanor defendants—a major factor in reducing the jail population–in many other jurisdictions. Increased use of nonfinancial pretrial release options by judicial officers was a key element in achieving a substantial drop in the jail population in several communities. Judges have introduced delay reduction strategies which have served to expedite case processing as well as minimize the number of detainees in jail. Judges have also successfully implemented a full range of sentencing atternatives, including community service, restitution and treatment programs for persons convicted of alcohol or drug-related offenses. This paper provides information on specific policies and procedures which have had a demonstrated impact on jail population levels without detracting from the operations of courts and, in most instances, contributing to improvements in judicial administration.     

Will More Black Cops Matter? Officer Race and Police‐Involved Homicides of Black Citizens

In response to police‐involved homicides of black citizens in Ferguson, Missouri, and elsewhere, some have suggested that more black police officers could reduce the number of these events. The authors offer an empirical test of this assertion. The literature offers conflicting expectations: some studies suggest that increased representation reduces discrimination, while others suggest that it increases discrimination. The authors reconcile these perspectives using the concept of critical mass, which leads to the expectation that an increase in black officers will reduce the number of black citizens killed in encounters with police, but only once the proportion of black officers is sufficiently large. We test this expectation in analyses of recently compiled data on police‐involved homicides in 2014 and 2015 in large U.S. cities.     

论审判权运行机制改革

审判权运行机制改革主要是为了贯彻中央关于深化司法体制和工作机制改革的总体部署，适应公正司法的要求，建立符合司法规律的审判权运行模式，优化配置审判资源，加强独任法官、合议庭办案责任制，维护独立审判原则，最大程度地满足人民群众对公平正义的需求，提高司法公信，树立司法权威。人民法院将着重设计具体的审理工作程序，使合议庭、审委会回归其审判组织的属性，强化审判责任，切实做到“让审理者裁判，由裁判者负责”。     

Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for Office?

Through their power to sentence, trial judges exercise enormous authority in the criminal justice system. In 39 American states, these judges stand periodically for reelection. Do elections degrade their impartiality? We develop a dynamic theory of sentencing and electoral control. Judges discount the future value of retaining office relative to implementing preferred sentences. Voters are largely uninformed about judicial behavior, so even the outcome of a single publicized case can be decisive in their evaluations. Further, voters are more likely to perceive instances of underpunishment than overpunishment. Our theory predicts that elected judges will consequently become more punitive as standing for reelection approaches. Using sentencing data from 22,095 Pennsylvania criminal cases in the 1990s, we find strong evidence for this effect. Additional tests confirm the validity of our theory over alternatives. For the cases we examine, we attribute at least 1,818 to 2,705 years of incarceration to the electoral dynamic.