Development of legal-tech prospects in the Federal Republic of Iraq: The predictive justice in Anglo-Saxon and Latin perspectives

Finally, the research recommended the need to deal with all these concerns raised by predictive justice as challenges rather than obstacles, in order to bypass what is known in French jurisprudence as the black box syndrome: “Syndrome de la boite noire”. The fact that our current sense of helplessness is more a natural result of our lack of understanding of the matter than the impossibility of the matter! The fact that we are still talking about this justice, and that even in the Western European system, including the French one, we are facing this justice as receivers of it more than as makers! The idea was born, grew, and spread in American thought within the Anglo-Saxon system. Therefore, and in the light of understanding the background of legal competition between this school and its Latin counterpart, it is not surprising that this reservation about it reaches the level of exaggerated suspicion. As for the fear that Quantitative Justice will prevail over Qualitative Justice in the relationship between law and mathematics, this brings us back to the same previous fear of the victory of Utilitarian Justice over Value-active Justice in the relationship between law and the economy, which cannot be a disincentive for us to proceed with this new digital approach. So between the technophobe and the fondness for it, we have to balance things and try as much as possible to benefit from this coming in the legal sciences, which will occupy its deserved place within it, whether we agree to that or not, so our success in this matter is in the measure of our reconciliation between our fear and our audacity, just as our ability to adapt and accurately understand this newcomer, as well as coexist with it, with the highest possible benefits, and the least possible losses. The justice is not an option, but a constitutional right that must be respected. And justice that does not take advantage of all the possibilities available to it to ensure access to this right is not justice worthy of consideration. Accordingly, we Iraqi and Kurdistani criminal researchers, supporters of the Latin school, must prepare well for this newcomer, trying as much as possible to benefit from it and avoid its shortcomings. Today, the issue is no longer being discussed as to whether or not this justice exists, but rather about the ability to adapt to it, and how to transform it from a challenge into an opportunity, and Upgrading the Iraqi criminal justice system, which is soon expected to be enacted by the Iraqi Council of Representatives (parliament).

We could summarise the conclusion in the following results:

through this research, it becomes clear to us that the use of digital technology (algorithm) in criminal justice represents a preliminary stage in the contribution of technological development to the process of modernising the values ofjustice in general, and therefore the use of this technology in the judicial decision-making process is not final and inevitable, on the one hand, and on the other hand, the advocates of the justice do not hesitate to preserve the traditional judicial values in their known contexts, and this is what most likely led to the use of this technology in the pre-trial stage more than in the trial stage;

within the preliminary stage, the research recommends legal guarantees with regards to the protection of personal data of natural persons partly or fully processed electronically by any holder, controller or processor, in this regard, the Iraqi federal and Kurd- istani legislators could have advantage from the Egyptian legislative approach represented by the Personal Data Protection Law No. 151 of 2020 See: Egyptian Official Gazette (28) bis (e). July 15, 2020. Accessed July 1, 2023. https://egyls.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/28-M-E.pdf. and its executive regulations;

the research recommends more communication between legal specialists from the judicial institutions, and specialists (programmers) in the field of artificial intelligence, in order to address the concerns of the advocates of the justice regarding the use of digital technology (algorithm), especially after the emergence of the Artificial Neural Network (ANN);

in addition to the auxiliary role of this technology for the judge for issuing a criminal judgment, but the research recommend it should be accompanied by caution and deep scrutiny;

-- the process of feeding data (in-coming judicial data) entering into the digital technology system (algorithm) by the human element and the careful supervision on them by the state, the research is highly recommend it, as a very important work to achieve accuracy and impartial results (out-coming judicial data).

Therefore, in conjunction with the launch of the new Iraqi Penal Code draft, submitted by the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council by the Presidency of the Federal Republic of Iraq to the Iraqi Council of Representatives last August (August 2021) See the statement of the Iraqi Presidency in the context of cooperation between the Presidency of the Federal Republic of Iraq and the Iraqi Supreme Judicial Council in the field of legislation laws enacting (the New Draft Penal Code). Accessed July 1, 2023. https://www.presidency.iq/EN/Details.aspx?ID=3385., we recommend the necessity of including the aforementioned project the mechanism for using the principles of the predictive justice, which could be represented by enacting digital technology (algorithm) in the field of Iraqi Criminal Justice, and we believe all of that could be done by strengthening the technological capabilities of judges by coupling judicial systems with professional organisations which specialised in digital technology (algorithm) via universities technical-scientific conferences and techno-legal research centres, as well as encouraging achieving cooperative research between legal specialists (Academics from legal colleges and the judiciary institutions) and technology specialists (programmers in the field of artificial intelligence-AI), within the aim to build an Iraqi integrated legal-tech project in the field of the predictive justice (Algorithmic Criminology).

References

1. Aletras, Nikolaos, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preotiuc-Pietro, Vasileios Lampos. 2016. “Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A natural language processing perspective”. Peer Journal Computer Science 2: e93. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93 Al-Khatib, Muhammad Irfan. 2018a. “Robots Legal Center: Personality and responsibility. A Comparative study: A reading of the European Rules for the Civil Law of Robots 2017” Mjlt klyt alqanwn alkwytyt alalmyt 6: 97-136. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://journal.kilaw.edu.kw/wp-content/up-loads/2019/01/97-136.pdf. (In Arabic).

2. Al-Khatib, Muhammad Irfan. 2018b. “Guarantees of the right in the digital age: From changing concept to changing protection. A reading of the European and French legislative position and a projection on the Kuwaiti legislative position” Mjlt klyt alqanwn alkwytyt alalmyt 6: 251-324. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://journal.kilaw.edu.kw/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/251-324-Arfan-alkteeb-2.pdf. (In Arabic) Bayamlioglu, Emre, Ronald Leenes. 2018. “The `rule of law' implications of data-driven decision-making: A techno-regulatory perspective”. Law, Innovation and Technology 10 (2): 295-313. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/17579961.2018.1527475?needAccess=true&rol e=button.

3. Blackman, Josh, Adam Aft, Corey Carpenter. 2012. “Fantasy SCOTUS: Crowdsourcing a Prediction Market for the Supreme Court” Northwestern Journal of Technology & Intellectual Property 10 (3). Accessed June 29, 2023. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1160&context=njtip. Brester, Aleksandr A., Elena A. Iurishina. 2018. “Criteria underlying decision making on punishment: Law enforcement practice empirical analysis”. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Pravo 9 (4): 535553. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu14.2018.406 (In Russian).

4. Brynjolfsson, Erik, Andrew McAfee. 2014. “The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies”. New York, London, W. W. Norton & Company. Accessed June 29, 2023. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4312922/mod_resource/content/2/Erik%20-%20The%20Second%20Machine%20Age.pdf.

5. Delacroix, Sylvie. 2018. “Computer systems fit for the legal profession?” Legal Ethics 21 (2): 119-135. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2018.1551702.

6. Diallo, Ibrahima. 2020. “Les enjeux de la justice predictive”. HAL open science. Accessed July 1, 2023, https:// hal.science/hal-02563645/document.

7. Faisal, Mohammed Al-Buhairi. 2015. The Impact of the Modern Scientific Renaissance on Legal Thought. A Study in the Philosophy of Law. Egypt, Markaz al-Dirasat al-`Arabiyah lil-Nashr wa-al-Tawzf. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://platform.almanhal.com/Reader/Book/56334. (In Arabic).

8. Haller, Stephan. 2010. “The things in the Internet of things”. RFID Journal. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228488111_The_Things_in_the_Internet_of_Things.

9. Hyde, Aurore. 2019. “La justice predictive: Enjeux et perspectives”. HAL open science. Accessed July 1, 2023. https://hal.science/hal-02149092/document.

10. Katz, Daniel M., Michael J. Bommarito II, Josh Blackman. 2014. “Predicting the behavior of the Supreme Court of the United States: A general approach”. Cornell University. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1407.6333.pdf.

11. Kay, Jonathan. 2017. “How do you regulate a self-improving algorithm?” The Atlantic. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/10/algorithms-future-of-health-care/543825.

12. Keown, Robert. 1980. “Mathematical models for legal prediction”. Computer Law Journal 2 (1). Accessed June 30, 2023. https://repository.law.uic.edu/jitpl/vol2/iss1/29.

13. Khalil, Ahmed. 2017. “Judicial announcement in the electronic way, its cases and sometimes illogicality”. The twenty-fifth international conference of the College of Law. Abu Dhabi. (In Arabic).

14. Kischel, Uwe, Andrew Hammel, eds. 2019. “The Context of Common Law”. Comparative Law, 227-358. Oxford, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198791355.003.0005.

15. Leach, Philip, Costas Paraskeva, Gordana Uzelac. 2010. “Human rights fact-finding. The European Court of Human Rights at a crossroads”. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 28 (1): 41-77. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1177/016934411002800103

16. Magrish, James L. 1961. “The Common Law tradition: Deciding appeals by Karl N. Llewellyn”. Indiana Law Journal 36 (4). Accessed June 30, 2023. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol36/iss4/9.

17. Manyika, James, Michael Chui. 2013. “Digital era brings hyperscale challenges”. The Financial Times. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://www.ft.com/content/f30051b2-1e36-11e4-bb68-00144feabdc0.

18. Polisano, Kevin. 2018. Cours de Statistiques niveau L1-L2. Accessed July 1, 2023. https://hal.science/cel-01787365/file/Cours_Statistiques_Polisano.pdf.

19. Pound, Roscoe. 1908. “Mechanical jurisprudence”. Columbia Law Review 8 (8): 605-623. Accessed June 30, 2023. http://www.minnesotalegalhistoryproject.org/assets/Pound-Mech.J.(1908)-MM.pdf.

20. Razmetaeva, Yulia, Sergiy Razmetaev. 2021. “Justice in the digital age: Technological solutions, hidden threats and enticing opportunities”. Access to Justice in Eastern Europe 2 (10): 104-117. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://doi.org/10.33327/AJEE-18-4.2-a000061.

21. Rouviere, Frederic. 2018. “Le raisonnement par algorithmes: le fantasme du juge-robot”. HAL open science. Accessed July 1, 2023. https://shs.hal.science/halshs-02250220.

22. Segal, Jeffrey. 1984. “Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 19621981”. American Political Science Review 78 (4): 891-900. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1955796.

23. Villasenor, John, Virginia Foggo. 2019. “Algorithms and sentencing: What does due process require?” Brookings. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/algorithms-and-sentencing-what-does-due-process-require.

24. Weber, Stephanie. 2018. “How artificial intelligence is transforming the criminal justice system”, /thought-works. Accessed June 30, 2023. https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/how-artificial-intelligence-transforming-criminal-justice-system.

Размещено на Allbest.ru