Preventing Machines From Lying: Why Interdisciplinary Collaboration is Essential for Understanding Artefactual or Artefactually Dependent Expert Evidence

Tim J Wilson, J. Bergman, Adam Jackson, Oliver B Popov
{"title":"Preventing Machines From Lying: Why Interdisciplinary Collaboration is Essential for Understanding Artefactual or Artefactually Dependent Expert Evidence","authors":"Tim J Wilson, J. Bergman, Adam Jackson, Oliver B Popov","doi":"10.1177/00220183231226087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article demonstrates a significantly different approach to managing probative risks arising from the complex and fast changing relationship between law and computer science. Law's historical problem in adapting to scientific and technologically dependent evidence production is seen less as a socio-techno issue than an ethical failure within criminal justice. This often arises because of an acceptance of epistemological incomprehension between lawyers and scientists. Something compounded by the political economy of criminal justice and safeguard evasion within state institutions. What is required is an exceptionally broad interdisciplinary collaboration to enable criminal justice decision-makers to understand and manage the risk of further ethical failure. If academic studies of law and technology are to address practitioner concerns, it is often necessary, however, to step down the doctrinal analysis to a specific jurisdictional level.","PeriodicalId":501562,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Criminal Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183231226087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article demonstrates a significantly different approach to managing probative risks arising from the complex and fast changing relationship between law and computer science. Law's historical problem in adapting to scientific and technologically dependent evidence production is seen less as a socio-techno issue than an ethical failure within criminal justice. This often arises because of an acceptance of epistemological incomprehension between lawyers and scientists. Something compounded by the political economy of criminal justice and safeguard evasion within state institutions. What is required is an exceptionally broad interdisciplinary collaboration to enable criminal justice decision-makers to understand and manage the risk of further ethical failure. If academic studies of law and technology are to address practitioner concerns, it is often necessary, however, to step down the doctrinal analysis to a specific jurisdictional level.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
防止机器撒谎:为什么跨学科合作对于理解人工或人工依赖的专家证据至关重要?
本文展示了一种截然不同的方法来管理因法律与计算机科学之间复杂而快速变化的关系而产生的证据风险。法律在适应科学和技术依赖性证据生产方面的历史问题,与其说是一个社会技术问题,不如说是刑事司法中的道德失误。这往往是由于律师和科学家在认识论上的不理解。刑事司法的政治经济学和国家机构内部的保障规避又加剧了这种情况。现在需要的是一种特别广泛的跨学科合作,使刑事司法决策者能够理解和管理进一步道德失范的风险。然而,如果对法律与技术的学术研究要解决实践者所关注的问题,往往需要将理论分析细化到具体的司法层面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Mental Health and Yoga in Prisons Testing the Effects of Workplace Variables on the Job Burnout Among Prison Officers in India: An Application of the Job Demands–Resources Model Non-Fatal Strangulation: An Empirical Review of the New Offence in England and Wales Introduction to the Special Issue on Mental Health in Prisons Finding a Compromise: A Criminal Law Defence for Regulating Medical Assistance in Dying
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1