算法、效率与法院的两面性——以巴西高等法院为例

Luisa Hedler
{"title":"算法、效率与法院的两面性——以巴西高等法院为例","authors":"Luisa Hedler","doi":"10.1515/sosys-2021-0014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The implementation of algorithms in Courts promises to bring an increase in efficiency to a legal system which is seen as slow and overburdened, but both the literature and governments are aware that there are potential risks of unwanted consequences to the functioning of the legal system. This paper is a case study of how the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) justifies the introduction of algorithms into their case management operations, articulating different notions of efficiency as they do so. Analyzing accounts in multiple sources, it is observed how the STJ self-describes these multiple roles, both as part of the legal system and its role as an organization which is part of the public administration – especially when trying to justify these changes to other government agencies, the legal community and society in general. The article shows that the STJ emphasizes its role in the legal system as an initial justification in official accounts, but largely emphasizes managerial gains internally, avoiding engaging with potential risks by preserving the moment of decision-making as exclusive of the judge.","PeriodicalId":384994,"journal":{"name":"Soziale Systeme","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Algorithms, Efficiency and the Two Faces of Courts – A Case Study of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ)\",\"authors\":\"Luisa Hedler\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/sosys-2021-0014\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The implementation of algorithms in Courts promises to bring an increase in efficiency to a legal system which is seen as slow and overburdened, but both the literature and governments are aware that there are potential risks of unwanted consequences to the functioning of the legal system. This paper is a case study of how the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) justifies the introduction of algorithms into their case management operations, articulating different notions of efficiency as they do so. Analyzing accounts in multiple sources, it is observed how the STJ self-describes these multiple roles, both as part of the legal system and its role as an organization which is part of the public administration – especially when trying to justify these changes to other government agencies, the legal community and society in general. The article shows that the STJ emphasizes its role in the legal system as an initial justification in official accounts, but largely emphasizes managerial gains internally, avoiding engaging with potential risks by preserving the moment of decision-making as exclusive of the judge.\",\"PeriodicalId\":384994,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Soziale Systeme\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Soziale Systeme\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2021-0014\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Soziale Systeme","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/sosys-2021-0014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

法院中算法的实施有望提高被视为缓慢和负担过重的法律体系的效率,但文献和政府都意识到,法律体系的运作存在潜在的不良后果风险。本文是一个案例研究,研究巴西高等法院(STJ)如何证明将算法引入其案件管理业务是合理的,并在此过程中阐明了不同的效率概念。通过分析多种来源的资料,我们可以观察到STJ如何自我描述这些多重角色,既作为法律体系的一部分,也作为公共行政的一部分,尤其是在试图向其他政府机构、法律界和整个社会证明这些变化的合理性时。文章表明,STJ强调其在法律体系中的作用,作为官方账户的初始辩护,但在很大程度上强调内部管理收益,通过保留法官专属的决策时刻来避免参与潜在风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Algorithms, Efficiency and the Two Faces of Courts – A Case Study of the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ)
Abstract The implementation of algorithms in Courts promises to bring an increase in efficiency to a legal system which is seen as slow and overburdened, but both the literature and governments are aware that there are potential risks of unwanted consequences to the functioning of the legal system. This paper is a case study of how the Brazilian Superior Tribunal of Justice (STJ) justifies the introduction of algorithms into their case management operations, articulating different notions of efficiency as they do so. Analyzing accounts in multiple sources, it is observed how the STJ self-describes these multiple roles, both as part of the legal system and its role as an organization which is part of the public administration – especially when trying to justify these changes to other government agencies, the legal community and society in general. The article shows that the STJ emphasizes its role in the legal system as an initial justification in official accounts, but largely emphasizes managerial gains internally, avoiding engaging with potential risks by preserving the moment of decision-making as exclusive of the judge.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Distinction Dynamics: A Form Analysis of Self-Descriptions in Agile Teams „Existenz ist eine selektive Blindheit“: Gegenstandsphilosophische Motive der Mathematik George Spencer-Browns Spencer-Brown, Luhmann and Klein on Symmetry Die Gesetze der Form aus der Sicht kategorientheoretischer Methoden Einleitung: Arbeit an der Form
×
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