The Experts below are selected from a list of 153042 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John Zeleznikow - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reflections on my journey in using Information Technology to support Legal Decision Making—from Legal Positivism to Legal Realism
Law in Context. A Socio-legal Journal, 2019Co-Authors: John ZeleznikowAbstract:In this paper I discuss my transition from Legal positivism to Legal realism and how this has impacted upon my construction of Legal Decision support systems. As a child living with parents who were heavily engaged in politics, and who had disastrous experiences with the twin evils of fascism and communism, I was encouraged to become a scientist. But my interest was always in law and politics. Constructing Legal Decision support systems was a pragmatic balance between my skills and interests. So I began constructing rule-based systems. But gradually I became aware of the discretionary nature of Legal Decision making and the need to model Legal realism. Through the use of machine learning I have been able to develop useful systems modelling discretion. The advent of the world wide web has allowed the wider community to become more aware of Legal Decision making. It has fostered the concept of online dispute resolution and provided tools for self-represented litigants. Most importantly, we have become aware that the major impediment to the use of technology in law is not the lack of adequate software. Rather it is the failure of the Legal profession to address user centric issues.
-
JURIX - A Legal Decision Support Guide for Owners Corporation Cases
2010Co-Authors: Peter Condliffe, Brooke Abrahams, John ZeleznikowAbstract:The paper describes the development of a Legal Decision support guide to relevant case law Decisions for owners corporation cases in the state of Victoria, Australia. The rate of growth of owners corporations (also known as body corporate or strata title properties) has increased significantly in the last two decades. Because of this growth, and the need to manage a rapidly expanding population, the governance and management of these entities has become an important concern for government. Conflict and its management within them is an essential element of this concern. The Victorian legislation outlines a three-tiered process for resolving disputes. Cases that can't be settled through negotiation are often referred to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT). Through our system we aim to provide Legal Decision support for relevant case law Decisions determined by VCAT to help guide disputants through the grievance process.
-
Building Intelligent Legal Decision Support Systems : Past Practice and Future Challenges
Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, 2004Co-Authors: John ZeleznikowAbstract:In [91] Susskind outlines the past use of Information Technology (IT), and indicates probable future uses of IT by the Legal profession. He indicates that until recently, there was only limited use of IT by Legal professionals. Whilst the use of word processing, office, automation, case management tools, client and case databases, electronic data/document interchange tools and fax machines is now standard, only recently have Legal firms commenced using knowledge management techniques. The use of applied Legal Decision support systems is in its infancy.
-
Using Web-based Legal Decision Support Systems to Improve Access to Justice
Information & Communications Technology Law, 2002Co-Authors: John ZeleznikowAbstract:There are an increasing number of litigants who are forced to represent themselves in court. This causes havoc in the judicial system and raises issues of access to justice. We believe that important support for unrepresented litigants can be provided by the construction of web-based Legal Decision support systems. We discuss tools we have constructed for building web-based Legal Decision support systems and give examples from the domains of Family Law and eligibility for Legal aid. We also illustrate how such Decision support tools can help litigants negotiate their disputes.
-
An Australian Perspective on Research and Development Required for the Construction of Applied Legal Decision Support Systems
Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2002Co-Authors: John ZeleznikowAbstract:At the Donald Berman Laboratory for Information Technology and Law, La TrobeUniversity Australia, we have been building Legal Decision support systems for a dozenyears. Whilst most of our energy has been devoted to conducting research in ArtificialIntelligence and Law, over the past few years we have increasingly focused uponbuilding Legal Decision support systems that have a commercial focus.In this paper we discuss the evolution of our systems. We begin with a discussion ofrule-based systems and discuss the transition to hybrid rule-based/case-based systems.We next discuss how we have used machine learning in building Legal Decision supportsystems. Our focus on using machine learning led us to investigate the domains ofexplanation and argumentation. We conclude by discussing our current work onbuilding negotiation support systems and tools for constructing web-based LegalDecision support systems.
Dan Hunter - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Reasoning paradigms in Legal Decision support systems
Artificial Intelligence Review, 1995Co-Authors: John Zeleznikow, Dan HunterAbstract:In this paper we discuss the strengths and weaknesses of a range of artificial intelligence approaches used in Legal domains. Symbolic reasoning systems which rely on deductive, inductive and analogical reasoning are described and reviewed. The role of statistical reasoning in law is examined, and the use of neural networks analysed. There is discussion of architectures for, and examples of, systems which combine a number of these reasoning strategies. We conclude that to build intelligent Legal Decision support systems requires a range of reasoning strategies.
Adam Harkens - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
re engineering justice robot judges computerised courts and semi automated Legal Decision making
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: John Morison, Adam HarkensAbstract:This paper takes a sceptical look at the possibility of advanced computer technology replacing judges. Looking first at the example of alternative dispute resolution where considerable progress has been made in developing tools to assist parties to come to agreement, attention then shifts to evaluating a number of other algorithmic instruments in a criminal justice context. The possibility of human judges being fully replaced within the courtroom strictu sensu is examined, and the various elements of the judicial role that need to be reproduced are considered. Drawing upon understandings of the Legal process as an essentially socially determined activity, the paper sounds a note of caution about the capacity of algorithmic approaches to ever fully penetrate this socio-Legal milieu and reproduce the activity of judging, properly understood. Finally the possibilities and dangers of semi-automated justice are reviewed. The risks of seeing this approach as avoiding the recognised problems of fully automated Decision-making are highlighted, and attention is directed towards the problems that remain when an algorithmic frame of reference is admitted into the human process of judging.
Kirk Heilbrun - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Neuroscientific, Neuropsychological, and Psychological Evidence Comparably Impact Legal Decision Making: Implications for Experts and Legal Practitioners
Journal of Forensic Psychology Research and Practice, 2018Co-Authors: Casey Laduke, Benjamin Locklair, Kirk HeilbrunAbstract:ABSTRACTNeuroscientific evidence is assuming an increasingly prominent role in criminal law, where it has considerable potential for affecting Legal Decision making. Our understanding of this effect is currently limited. Research initially suggested a significant impact of neuroscience on lay and Legal Decision making, but subsequent investigations have failed to replicate or extend these findings. The current study investigated the impact of several types of evidence in a novel criminal-sentencing paradigm that surveyed community participants (N = 896) using Amazon Mechanical Turk. No significant differences among neuroscientific, neuropsychological, and psychological evidence conditions—with or without images—were observed on mock jurors’ impressions of the evidence, sentencing Decisions, or opinions of violence risk, recidivism, or culpability. These results suggest that our current understanding of the differential impact of neuroscientific and neuroimaging evidence on Legal Decision making may be ove...
-
The Role Forensic of Psychological Testing Assessment in
1992Co-Authors: Kirk HeilbrunAbstract:Despite the apparent widespread use of psychological tests in evaluations performed by psychologists to assist Legal Decision makers, there has been little critical but balanced examination of the appropriate parameters for the forensic use of such tests. The following discussion examines the nature of Legal Decision making, and concludes that the primary Legal criterion for the admissibility of psychological testing is relevance to the immediate Legal issue or to some underlying psychological construct. Assuming that accuracy is a more consistent concern for psychologists performing such evaluations, the criticisms of various commentators are discussed. Some criticisms appear appropriate and are incorporated into a set of proposed guidelines for the use of psychological tests in forensic contexts. Other criticisms appear misplaced, however, and the call for a whole sale ban on psychological testing in the forensic context is rejected. The appropriate role of psychological testing in forensic assessment 1 has been debated for a number of years, and is far from clear at present. Critics have described such assessment procedures as "controversial" and "of doubtful validity and applicability in relation to forensic issues" (Ziskin, 1981a, p. 225; see also Faust & Ziskin, 1988, 1989; Ziskin & Faust, 1988). The major goal of this article is to discuss the research and commentary critical of psychological testing
-
the role of psychological testing in forensic assessment
Law and Human Behavior, 1992Co-Authors: Kirk HeilbrunAbstract:Despite the apparent widespread use of psychological tests in evaluations performed by psychologists to assist Legal Decision makers, there has been little critical but balanced examination of the appropriate parameters for the forensic use of such tests. The following discussion examines the nature of Legal Decision making, and concludes that the primary Legal criterion for the adminissibility of psychological testing isrelevance to the immediate Legal issue or to some underlying psychological construct. Assuming thataccuracy is a more consistent concern for psychologists performing such evaluations, the criticisms of various commentators are discussed. Some criticisms appear appropriate and are incorporated into a set of proposed guidelines for the use of psychological tests in forensic contexts. Other criticisms appear misplaced, however, and the call for a whole sale ban on psychological testing in the forensic context is rejected.
John Morison - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
re engineering justice robot judges computerised courts and semi automated Legal Decision making
Social Science Research Network, 2019Co-Authors: John Morison, Adam HarkensAbstract:This paper takes a sceptical look at the possibility of advanced computer technology replacing judges. Looking first at the example of alternative dispute resolution where considerable progress has been made in developing tools to assist parties to come to agreement, attention then shifts to evaluating a number of other algorithmic instruments in a criminal justice context. The possibility of human judges being fully replaced within the courtroom strictu sensu is examined, and the various elements of the judicial role that need to be reproduced are considered. Drawing upon understandings of the Legal process as an essentially socially determined activity, the paper sounds a note of caution about the capacity of algorithmic approaches to ever fully penetrate this socio-Legal milieu and reproduce the activity of judging, properly understood. Finally the possibilities and dangers of semi-automated justice are reviewed. The risks of seeing this approach as avoiding the recognised problems of fully automated Decision-making are highlighted, and attention is directed towards the problems that remain when an algorithmic frame of reference is admitted into the human process of judging.
