Warns of the “bankruptcy of rights” if judges and prosecutors are replaced by artificial intelligence
MADRID, 26 Oct. (EUROPA PRESS) –
The president of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, Manuel Marchena, has taken possession of his position as Number Academician in the Law Section of the Royal Academy of Doctors of Spain in an act that was held this Wednesday in the Auditorium of the Complutense University.
The meeting was attended by the president of the Constitutional Court, Pedro González-Trevijano, and the acting president of the Supreme Court, Francisco Marín Castán, among other magistrates from the judicial leadership.
Within the framework of his speech, Marchena has vindicated the work of legal professionals, although he has warned that “the criminal process has not been able to escape the passage of time” and that, at present, “it is permanently exposed to the challenge of your update”.
Thus, he has insisted that “the need to update the methodology of criminal investigation cannot be questioned.” In line, he recalled that several countries have already opted for technology to modernize the judicial system and has made special reference to China, which has developed a prosecutor with artificial intelligence to prepare indictments.
Marchena has warned of the possible “bankruptcy of rights” if judges and prosecutors are replaced by artificial intelligence tools. The magistrate has shown his rejection of this type of technology being something more than an “auxiliary element” for professionals in the judicial and prosecutorial career.
“Blind trust in the prediction would imply a resounding violation of rights”, he pointed out, while stressing that with robotic justice there is a risk that the very existence of the Prosecutor’s Office and an investigating judge will be questioned ; even, he has said, of the oral trial itself.
The magistrate explained that speaking of predictive justice “leads to the bankruptcy of constitutional rights”, in reference to the rights of defense, presumption of innocence and impartiality of the judge.
On this point, Marchena stressed that “it is not easy to explain the impartiality of a machine”, but he recalled that a machine is “incapable” of escaping its algorithms and that these are written by people.
Thus, he has asked “not to associate robotic justice with justice without errors.” “From the robot judge, a fair resolution cannot be expected, but an exact resolution,” she added.
