Artificial Intelligence
As a lawyer, I understand the importance of human judges in the Indian judicial system. While technology and AI can play a vital role in reducing the backlog of cases, it’s essential to recognize that human judges possess unique abilities that cannot be replicated by machines.
While AI algorithms can analyze data and identify patterns, they lack the ability to comprehend the nuances of human behavior and culture. AI systems can also suffer from biases, which can lead to unfair outcomes.
Human judges bring critical reasoning skills, Judgment, and empathy to the courtroom, which are crucial for delivering fair and just outcomes. Judges possess the ability to interpret and apply the law in a manner that reflects the social and cultural context of the case. They can consider the nuances of each case, take into account the perspectives of all parties involved, and make informed decisions that are in the best interests of justice.
While AI algorithms can analyze data and identify patterns, they lack the ability to comprehend the nuances of human behavior and culture. AI systems can also suffer from biases, which can lead to unfair outcomes. Judges, on the other hand, have the ability to recognize and address biases, ensuring that justice is served impartially.
Furthermore, judges possess the emotional intelligence necessary to handle complex cases that involve trauma, grief, and loss. They can empathize with the parties involved, understand their perspectives, and deliver judgments that take into account the human impact of the case.
ALSO READ
While technology and AI can play a crucial role in reducing the backlog of cases, it’s important to acknowledge that human judges bring unique abilities to the courtroom that cannot be replicated by machines. The ability to reason, exercise judgment, and empathize with parties involved are all essential components of a fair and just judicial system. Therefore, it’s important to strike a balance between the use of technology and the critical role of human judges in delivering justice.
First ROBOT LAWYER Sued!
DoNotPay is distinct from a robot, a lawyer, or a law firm. It lacks a legal education, is not authorized to practice in any jurisdiction, and is not under the supervision of any attorney
Chicago-based law firm Edelson has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against DoNotPay, a legal service app that describes itself as the “world’s first robot lawyer,” for allegedly practicing law without a license. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Jonathan Faridian, a customer who used DoNotPay to write legal documents but received substandard results, thinking that they were sourced from a competent lawyer.
According to the complaint, “DoNotPay is not actually a robot, a lawyer, nor a law firm. The lawsuit claims that DoNotPay lacks a legal degree, is not licensed to practice law in any jurisdiction, and is not subject to supervision by any attorney. Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that DoNotPay’s customers were placed in a vulnerable position. But in reality, the app uses artificial intelligence to assist customers in many legal services without hiring a lawyer.
DoNotPay was founded in 2015 as an app to help customers dispute parking tickets, but it has since expanded to assist customers in fighting corporations, finding hidden money, and “suing anyone.” The app claims to use artificial intelligence to assist customers in legal matters, but the lawsuit alleges that DoNotPay is not supervised by any lawyer and lacks the necessary qualifications to practice law.
DoNotPay is not the first legal service app to face legal challenges. In 2017, the state bar of California filed a lawsuit against the legal service app, LegalZoom, for allegedly engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. The lawsuit was settled in 2018, with LegalZoom agreeing to pay $50 million and to comply with state regulations.
The lawsuit against DoNotPay serves as a reminder that legal service apps must operate within the confines of the law and that customers should be aware of the limitations of using such apps for legal matters.
BENCH ASKED THE AI TOOL
WHAT ON BAIL WHEN THE ASSAILANTS ASSAULTED WITH CRUELTY ?
Punjab and Haryana High Court recently sought the opinion of an AI chatbot, ChatGPT, regarding bail jurisprudence in cases involving cruelty-laced assault. This marks a first-of-its-kind move for an Indian court, aimed at obtaining a broader picture on bail jurisprudence.
The court asked ChatGPT about the bail jurisprudence in cases where the attackers had committed assault with cruelty. ChatGPT responded that the bail jurisprudence would depend on the particular circumstances of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction. In general, if the attackers were charged with a violent crime involving cruelty, they could be considered a danger to the community and a flight risk. The court would consider the severity of the assault, the defendant’s criminal history, and the strength of the evidence when deciding whether to grant bail.
After hearing the arguments, the court rejected the bail petition, stating that the petitioner had a criminal history of two attempted murder cases and provided no assurance that they would not engage in criminal behavior or abscond if granted bail.
We strive to make a lasting impact on India’s policy and planning landscape through fair, unbiased, and incisive research based journalism.
But we can’t do it alone.
Together, we can create a better India, where policies are fair, planning is unbiased, and the truth prevails. Your contribution matters, and we shall be immensely grateful for your support.