Gary Slapper1 Explores the Complexities of English Law in Plain Language

From Times Online, August 8, 2007

[A]n international robot conference in the US [...] got me thinking: what, if anything, in [...] law can be done by robots? Could machines do the work of lawyers and judges? [...] in truth, while computers can help greatly they can’t do the legal work itself. [...]

As with many scientific and technological changes, what starts as a flight of imagination gets progressively closer to reality. In 2006, a Chinese criminal court began using computers to determine the length of custodial sentences for people convicted of offences. The [...] Court uses software which covers about 100 different types of crime [...]. After a conviction, the judge keys in details of the case using formatted answer boxes, clicks Enter, and the computer automatically calculates the appropriate sentence.

The software’s developer [...] has said it is designed to ensure standardised decisions on prison terms. One common idea of fairness (achieved by this system) is that convicted people should be sentenced without reference to any of their personal or social characteristics [...]. These would be evident to a human judge [...] but a computer is not prejudiced in that way. At least not unless its software has been slanted with any bigotry.

There are, though, some aspects of judges’ work that it is difficult to imagine being done by a computer in a way that is desirably different from the way a real judge would operate. In the appeal courts, which clarify and declare what the law is, appeal judges often have to weigh up points of legal and social policy that can’t be scientifically calculated by a computer. For example, a computer can’t adequately calculate in what circumstances the law should stifle freedom of expression in order to protect those who might be offended by criticism.

Admittedly, some computer software like that used by economists or in computer games about simulated cities is quite sophisticated. It could be adapted to help appeal courts resolve law. But even if law can be calculated by a computer, when the judge presses Enter the resultant judgment can be nothing more than the implementation of policies that are written into the software.

Should employers be liable if their employees suffer nervous breakdown through overwork of which managers were aware? Is serious injury caused in consensual adult sadomasochistic sex criminal? Questions like these, which have been resolved by appeal courts (they ruled yes in both those cases) can’t be calculated by a machine without it being given an immense range of highly subtle thoughts. And it isn’t clear that an electronic circuit-board decision in such cases would be better than a blood-fed brain one.

In one sense, law is a science. It is a complex body of knowledge and technique taught and practised systematically. Law is made, interpreted, applied and repealed according to precisely set procedures. [...] But, despite all that, there’s a lot of social policy in judgments, and allowing computers to make some sorts of decision doesn’t really take the policy element out of law, it just displaces it into the hands of the legal software designers. [...]

                                                                                                       Professor Gary Slapper is Director at the Centre for Law at the Open university.

1- Law courts using computers belong to fiction. FALSE
As with many scientific and technological changes, what starts as a flight of imagination gets progressively closer to reality. 

2- Computers are used in Chinese law courts. TRUE
In 2006, a Chinese criminal court began using computers to determine the length of custodial sentences for people convicted of offences.

3- Computers are used only in a few cases. FALSE
The [...] Court uses software which covers about 100 different types of crime 

4- Computers are used so as to define the length of sentences. TRUE
"Chinese criminal court began using computers to determine the length of custodial sentences for people convicted of offences" & "clicks Enter, and the computer automatically calculates the appropriate sentence."

5- Such a system is aimed at more objectivity. TRUE
The software’s developer [...] has said it is designed to ensure standardised decisions on prison terms

6- Such a system is totally unbiased. FALSE
There are, though, some aspects of judges’ work that it is difficult to imagine being done by a computer 

7- There are no humans involved. FALSE
appeal judges often have to weigh up points of legal and social policy that can’t be scientifically calculated by a computer.

8- Computers can’t do all the judges’ work. TRUE
appeal judges often have to weigh up points of legal and social policy that can’t be scientifically calculated by a computer.

9- Computers in a law court are not 100 % reliable. TRUE
And it isn’t clear that an electronic circuit-board decision in such cases would be better than a blood-fed brain one.

B. Answer the following questions.

1- What are the nature and origin of the document?

2- Could machines do the work of lawyers and judges? What is the journalist’s answer to this question?

3- What are the pros and cons of each solution according to the journalist?

4- Why do you think the Chinese have begun using computers in law courts?

5- Do you share the journalist’s views? Why or why not?

while / whereas; contrary to / unlike; though / although / even though; however / yet / still / nevertheless; despite / in spite of