top of page
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute
Asian Institute of Research, Journal Publication, Journal Academics, Education Journal, Asian Institute

Law and Humanities
Quarterly Reviews

ISSN 2827-9735

Judge Gavel
Scales of Justice
City Crowds
People in Library
crossref
doi
open access

Published: 19 January 2025

Equitable and Algorithmic Legal Reasoning: Deconstructive Approach to Human and Artificial Intelligence Judges

Rabia Sağlam

Kocaeli University Law School, Turkey

asia institute of research, journal of education, education journal, education quarterly reviews, education publication, education call for papers
pdf download

Download Full-Text Pdf

doi

10.31014/aior.1996.04.01.137

Pages: 27-38

Keywords: Equity, Virtue, Legal Reasoning, Algorithm, Aporia, Deconstruction, Derrida, Aristotle

Abstract

This paper argues that equitable legal reasoning is not an exclusive property of human judges. To investigate whether judges’ perceptions can be regarded as a fundamental and special prerequisite for equitable reasoning, I discuss the virtue jurisprudence thesis. Then, using the aporetic logic of deconstructive justice, I outline a framework for the prospective content of equitable reasoning for human judges and future artificial intelligence (AI) judges. However, despite the optimistic and visionary claims about AI judges’ ability to make decisions in a similar way to human judges, pervasive skepticism exists. This essay critically analyzes this skepticism by focusing on the possibility of programing algorithmic models to encode values associated with Aristotle’s concept of epikeia. To demonstrate how algorithmic reasoning can be harmonized with value-based principles, a case-based algorithmic model is presented as a representative example. The goal of this example is to challenge the assumption that human judges have an inherent advantage in (equitable) legal reasoning. To illustrate that the reasoning of human judges is not always equitable, I present an example of an inequitable decision by the Turkish Supreme Court of Appeals. These examples serve to justify my two claims. First, there is no compelling reason to favor the ‘virtuous’ and ‘legal’ reasoning of human judges over the ‘algorithmic’ reasoning of AI judges. Second, the legal responsibility to consider the particular nuances of each case—the central element of equitable reasoning—can be seen as a quality attributed to both human and AI judges.

References

Amaya, A. 2023. Reasoning in Character: Virtue, Legal Argumentation, and Judicial Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 1-20, Springer.
Arias, J., Moreno-Rebato, M., Rodriguez-García, J.A. et al. 2024. Automated legal reasoning with discretion to act using s(LAW). Artificial Intelligent Law 32: 1141–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09376-5.
Aristotle. 2021. Nicomachean Ethics, trans. W. D. Ross, Global Grey Ebooks.
Aristotle. 2008. The Art of Rhetoric, trans. W. Rhys Roberts, Megaphone Ebooks.
Beneduzi, Renato. 2021. Equity In the Civil Law Tradition, 5-164, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78067-8.
Benzmüller, C., D. Fuenmayor and B. Lomfeld. 2024. Modelling Value-Oriented Legal Reasoning in LOGIKEY. Logics 2: 31–78. https://doi.org/10.3390/logics2010003.
Chesterman, Simon. 1997. Beyond Fusion Fallacy: The Transformation of Equity and Derrida's 'The Force of Law.' Journal of Law and Society 24(3): 350-376.
Chiao, Vincent. 2018. Predicting Proportionality: The Case for Algorithmic Sentencing. Criminal Justice Ethics 37 (3): 238-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2018.1552359.
Derrida, Jacques. 1992. The Other Heading: Reflections on Today’s Europe, trans. Pascale-Anne Brault and Michael B. Naas, Indiana University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 1993. Aporias, trans. Thomas Dutoit, Stanford University Press.
Derrida, Jacques. 2002. Force of Law the “Mystical Foundation of Authority.” In Acts of Religion, ed. Gil Anidjar, 230-293, Routledge.
Derrida, Jacques. 1997. The Villanova Roundtable, A Conversation with Jacques Derrida. In Deconstruction in a Nutshell, ed. John D. Caputa, Fordham University Press.
Domselaar, Iris van. 2020a. The Perceptive Judge. In The Faces of Virtue in Law, ed. A. Amaya and C. Michelon, 71-87, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1080/20403313.2017.1352319.
Domselaar, Iris van. 2020b. All Judges on the Couch? On Iris Murdoch and Legal Decision Making. In Virtue, Emotion and Imagination in Law and Legal Reasoning, ed. A. Amaya and M. del Mar, 77-98, Hart Publishing. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509925162.ch-005.
Dulka, Anne. 2023. The Use of Artificial Intelligence in International Human Rights Law. Stanford Technology Law Review 26 (2): 316-366.
Fritsch, Matthias. 2011. Deconstructive Aporias: Quasi-Transcendental and Normative. Continental Philosophy Review 44: 439–468.
Hildebrandt, Mireille. 2020. Code-driven Law: Freezing the Future and Scaling the Past. In Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence, ed. Simon Deakin and Christopher Markou, 67-83, Hart Publishing.
Hohfeld, Wesley N. 1913. Relations Between Equity and Law. Michigan Law Review 11 (8): 537-571. https://doi.org/10.2307/1275798.
Kontos, Pavlos. 2023. Introduction to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-41985-0.
Markou, Christopher and Simon Deakin. 2020. Ex Machina Lex: Exploring the Limits of Legal Computability. In Is Law Computable? Critical Perspectives on Law and Artificial Intelligence, ed. Simon Deakin and Christopher Markou, 31-66, Hart Publishing.
Morison, John and Tomás McInerney. 2024. When Should a Computer Decide? Judicial Decision-Making in The Age of Automation, Algorithms and Generative Artificial Intelligence. In Research Handbook on Judging and The Judiciary, ed. S. Turenne and M. Moussa, 1-34, Elgar-Routledge.
Nachbar, Thomas B. 2021. Algorithmic Fairness, Algorithmic Discrimination. Florida State University Law Review 48: 509-558.
Postema, Gerald J. 2022. Law’s Rule, The Nature, Value, And Viability of The Rule of Law, Oxford University Press.
Sağlam, Rabia. 2021. Posthuman Dijital Özne: Braidotti'nin Eleştirel İnsan Sonrasının Eleştirisi. Vira Verita E-Dergi 13: 295-323. https://doi.org/10.47124/viraverita.868249.
Sağlam, Rabia. 2023. “Hukuk-Sonrası Süreçin Krizi: Kişilik Hakları ve Hınç” içinde Kriz Zamanlarında Hukuk ve Felsefe (Philosophy and Law in Times of Crisis), ed. Gülriz Uygur-Stephen Riley, Türkiye Felsefe Kurumu Yayınları.
Samuel, Geoffrey. 2017. Equity and Legal Reasoning. Pólemos 11 (1): 41- 53.
Samuel, Geoffrey. 2016. What Judging and Legal Reasoning Have Been. In A Short Introduction to Judging and to Legal Reasoning, 5-34, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Shanske, Darien. 2008. Revitalizing Aristotle’s Doctrine of Equity. Journal of Law Culture and the Humanities 4 (3): 352-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1743872108093102.
Shanske, Darien. 2005. Four Theses: Preliminary to an Appeal to Equity. Stanford Law Review 57: 2053-2098.
Siliquini Cinelli, Luca. 2024. What is Legal Reasoning? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10141-3.
Solum, L. B. 2003. Virtue Jurisprudence: A Virtue-Centred Theory of Judging. Metaphilosophy 34 (1/2):178-213. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9973.00268.
Solum, L. B. 2019. Artificially Intelligent Law. BioLaw Journal 1: 53-62.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2001. Of Artificial Intelligence and Legal Reasoning. University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory, Working Paper 18 (5).
Tella, María José Falcón y. 2008. Equity And Law, trans. Peter Muckley, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Turkish Supreme Court of Appeals, 07 February 2018 (2018/185). https://karararama.yargitay.gov.tr/#.
Zwalve, W.J. 2014. The Equity of the Law: Law and Equity Since Justinian. In Law & Equity Approaches in Roman Law and Common Law, ed. E. Koops and W. J. Zwalve, 15-37, Brill-Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004262201_003.

bottom of page