机器能公正地宣判吗?

Q2 Social Sciences Criminal Justice Ethics Pub Date : 2022-09-02 DOI:10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867
Aziz Z Huq
{"title":"机器能公正地宣判吗?","authors":"Aziz Z Huq","doi":"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Jesper Ryberg and Julian Roberts teach ethics and criminology at Roskilde University and the University of Oxford respectively. In Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, they have curated a powerful and compelling collection of essays on the application of a new technology to an old problem. Their edited volume focuses on the application of predictive computational tools, often called “artificial intelligence” (AI) or “machine learning,” to the task of determining the punishment that a convicted offender will receive. As their professional orientations might lead one to expect, their book focuses on normative rather than empirical or technical questions. The resulting essays, written by scholars from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union (but not the Global South), do not advance a single thesis or follow a singular argumentative thread. They instead engage with in interrelated suite of normative questions. These include due process (or the procedural obligations owed by the state to individuals); non-discrimination entitlements; and the defendant’s claims to an “accurate” judgment (so far as facts go) or the opportunity to call for “mercy” in the exercise of sentencing-related discretion. All of these issues, as I shall discuss below, are addressed at what we might call a “mid-level” of generality—i.e. by taking as the object of study institutions and practices at a certain level of abstraction. This decision results in discussion generic enough to be located in any one of a number Western European or North American jurisdictions, whether guided by civil or common law. Indeed, it is quite striking that the reader does not encounter much by way of a case study or a specific description of AI-driven sentencing for the first sixty pages of the book. When specific tools are discussed, moreover, details are also scant. For Aziz Z. Huq is Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, USA. Email: huq@uchicago.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2022 Vol. 41, No. 3, 268–277, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867","PeriodicalId":35931,"journal":{"name":"Criminal Justice Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can a Machine Sentence Justly?\",\"authors\":\"Aziz Z Huq\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Jesper Ryberg and Julian Roberts teach ethics and criminology at Roskilde University and the University of Oxford respectively. In Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, they have curated a powerful and compelling collection of essays on the application of a new technology to an old problem. Their edited volume focuses on the application of predictive computational tools, often called “artificial intelligence” (AI) or “machine learning,” to the task of determining the punishment that a convicted offender will receive. As their professional orientations might lead one to expect, their book focuses on normative rather than empirical or technical questions. The resulting essays, written by scholars from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union (but not the Global South), do not advance a single thesis or follow a singular argumentative thread. They instead engage with in interrelated suite of normative questions. These include due process (or the procedural obligations owed by the state to individuals); non-discrimination entitlements; and the defendant’s claims to an “accurate” judgment (so far as facts go) or the opportunity to call for “mercy” in the exercise of sentencing-related discretion. All of these issues, as I shall discuss below, are addressed at what we might call a “mid-level” of generality—i.e. by taking as the object of study institutions and practices at a certain level of abstraction. This decision results in discussion generic enough to be located in any one of a number Western European or North American jurisdictions, whether guided by civil or common law. Indeed, it is quite striking that the reader does not encounter much by way of a case study or a specific description of AI-driven sentencing for the first sixty pages of the book. When specific tools are discussed, moreover, details are also scant. For Aziz Z. Huq is Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, USA. Email: huq@uchicago.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2022 Vol. 41, No. 3, 268–277, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867\",\"PeriodicalId\":35931,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Criminal Justice Ethics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Criminal Justice Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminal Justice Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

Jesper Ryberg和Julian Roberts分别在罗斯基勒大学和牛津大学教授伦理学和犯罪学。在《量刑与人工智能》(Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence)一书中,他们整理了一本关于新技术如何解决老问题的强大而引人注目的论文集。他们编辑的书集中在预测计算工具的应用上,通常被称为“人工智能”(AI)或“机器学习”,以确定被定罪的罪犯将受到的惩罚。正如他们的专业取向可能导致人们期望的那样,他们的书侧重于规范而不是经验或技术问题。这些论文由来自美国、加拿大、英国和欧盟(但不包括全球南方国家)的学者撰写,没有提出单一的论点,也没有遵循单一的论证思路。相反,他们关注的是一系列相互关联的规范性问题。这些包括正当程序(或国家对个人应承担的程序性义务);不歧视权利;被告要求得到“准确”的判决(就事实而言)或在行使与量刑有关的自由裁量权时要求“仁慈”的机会。所有这些问题,正如我将在下面讨论的那样,都是在我们所谓的“中等水平”的普遍性上解决的。以一定抽象层次上的制度和实践为研究对象。这一决定导致的讨论足够普遍,可以在西欧或北美的任何一个司法管辖区进行,无论是由民法还是普通法指导。事实上,在书的前60页中,读者并没有通过案例研究或对人工智能驱动的量刑的具体描述,这一点非常引人注目。此外,当讨论特定的工具时,也缺少细节。Aziz Z. Huq,美国芝加哥大学法学院教授。电子邮件:huq@uchicago.edu刑事司法伦理,2022年第41卷第3期,268-277,https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867
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
Can a Machine Sentence Justly?
Jesper Ryberg and Julian Roberts teach ethics and criminology at Roskilde University and the University of Oxford respectively. In Sentencing and Artificial Intelligence, they have curated a powerful and compelling collection of essays on the application of a new technology to an old problem. Their edited volume focuses on the application of predictive computational tools, often called “artificial intelligence” (AI) or “machine learning,” to the task of determining the punishment that a convicted offender will receive. As their professional orientations might lead one to expect, their book focuses on normative rather than empirical or technical questions. The resulting essays, written by scholars from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union (but not the Global South), do not advance a single thesis or follow a singular argumentative thread. They instead engage with in interrelated suite of normative questions. These include due process (or the procedural obligations owed by the state to individuals); non-discrimination entitlements; and the defendant’s claims to an “accurate” judgment (so far as facts go) or the opportunity to call for “mercy” in the exercise of sentencing-related discretion. All of these issues, as I shall discuss below, are addressed at what we might call a “mid-level” of generality—i.e. by taking as the object of study institutions and practices at a certain level of abstraction. This decision results in discussion generic enough to be located in any one of a number Western European or North American jurisdictions, whether guided by civil or common law. Indeed, it is quite striking that the reader does not encounter much by way of a case study or a specific description of AI-driven sentencing for the first sixty pages of the book. When specific tools are discussed, moreover, details are also scant. For Aziz Z. Huq is Professor at the University of Chicago Law School, Chicago, IL, USA. Email: huq@uchicago.edu Criminal Justice Ethics, 2022 Vol. 41, No. 3, 268–277, https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2022.2136867
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
Criminal Justice Ethics
Criminal Justice Ethics Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
期刊最新文献
Exposing, Reversing, and Inheriting Crimes as Traumas from the Neurosciences to Epigenetics: Why Criminal Law Cannot Yet Afford A(nother) Biology-induced Overhaul Institutional Corruption, Institutional Corrosion and Collective Responsibility Sentencing, Artificial Intelligence, and Condemnation: A Reply to Taylor Double Jeopardy, Autrefois Acquit and the Legal Ethics of the Rule Against Unreasonably Splitting a Case Ethical Resource Allocation in Policing: Why Policing Requires a Different Approach from Healthcare
×
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