司法人工智能:风险、定位与法律规制——以上海“206”刑事办案辅助系统为例  

Judicial Artificial Intelligence:Risks,Positioning and Legal Regulation:Take Shanghai "206" Criminal Case Assistance System as an Example

作　　者：刘子凡 LIU Zifan(Law School,Guilin University of Electronic Science and Technology,Guilin,Guangxi 541200,China)

机构地区：[1]桂林电子科技大学法学院,广西桂林541200

出　　处：《西昌学院学报（社会科学版）》2022年第3期52-56,共5页Journal of Xichang University：Social Science Edition

摘　　要：司法人工智能的广泛运用,提高了司法效率,有助于司法公正。但高度智能化、自动化的人工智能,干扰了法定司法原则与司法模式的适用,带来了一些法律风险。法院独立行使审判权原则受到人工智能冲击,算法的偏见和不透明影响司法公正与公开,人工智能对公权力机关办案能力的强化,使得传统稳定的诉讼三角结构面临失衡风险。对司法人工智能定位的偏颇是出现这些风险的主要原因。司法人工智能须坚持辅助性定位,治理其需秉持“法治归化技术”的思路。应通过贯彻司法责任制和限定人工智能的运用情境来强化法院独立行使审判权原则;要推动建设算法公开机制以加强司法公开;用人工智能充分保障当事人权利,提升其诉讼能力,可尽量使诉讼结构保持平衡。The extensive use of judicial artificial intelligence has improved judicial efficiency and contributed to justice.However,highly intelligent and automated AI has interfered with the application of statutory judicial principles and judicial models,bringing some legal risks as well. The principle of the independent exercise of judicial power by the court is impacted by AI,the bias and opacity of algorithm affects its justice and openness,and the strengthening of the case handling ability of public authorities by AI makes the traditional stable litigation triangle structure face the risk of imbalance.The main reason for these risks is the biased positioning of judicial AI. Judicial artificial intelligence must holds onto its auxiliary position,and its governance needs to submit to the "rule-of-law naturalized technology" idea. The principle of independent exercise of judicial power should be strengthened by implementing the judicial accountability system and limiting the context of AI use;the construction of an algorithmic disclosure mechanism should be promoted to enhance judicial openness;and the use of AI to adequately safeguard the rights of the parties and enhance their litigation capacity can keep the litigation structure as balanced as possible.

关 键 词：司法人工智能 定位 法治归化 法律规制 

分 类 号：D926[政治法律—法学]