The Hidden Inconsistencies Introduced by Predictive Algorithms in Judicial Decision Making

Algorithms, from simple automation to machine learning, have been introduced into judicial contexts to ostensibly increase the consistency and efficiency of legal decision making. In this paper, we describe four types of inconsistencies introduced by risk prediction algorithms. These inconsistencies threaten to violate the principle of treating similar cases similarly and often arise from the need to operationalize legal concepts and human behavior into specific measures that enable the building and evaluation of predictive algorithms. These inconsistencies, however, are likely to be hidden from their end-users: judges, parole officers, lawyers, and other decision-makers. We describe the inconsistencies, their sources, and propose various possible indicators and solutions. We also consider the issue of inconsistencies due to the use of algorithms in light of current trends towards more autonomous algorithms and less human-understandable behavioral big data. We conclude by discussing judges and lawyers' duties of technological ("algorithmic") competence and call for greater alignment between the evaluation of predictive algorithms and corresponding judicial goals

Civil Society and Regional Human Rights Development in Asia: Lessons from the Asian Human Rights Court Simulation

In 2019, the historic first hearing of the Asian Human Rights Court Simulation (AHRCS and its Court\u27) took place in Taipei, Taiwan. The Court heard the case of Chiou Ho-shun v. ROC (Taiwan). The judges of the AHRCS consisted of experts in international human rights law; and observers from the media, scholars, government officials, and national and international human rights defenders were in attendance. Along with the hearings, the event included workshops on international human rights topics and a civil society dialogue. This article discusses issues surrounding the development, ecosystem, and future of the Court. The article first discusses the Asian perspective on human rights and the regionalization of human rights. The article then discusses the role of the AHRCS and the case of Chiou Ho-shun v. ROC (Taiwan). Importantly, the article discusses the role of civil society participation in the AHRCS and concludes with recommendations regarding an AHRCS Civil Society Organization Coordinator and a Special Rapporteur for follow-up matters

Civil Society and Regional Human Rights Development in Asia: Lessons from the Asian Human Rights Court Simulation

In 2019, the historic first hearing of the Asian Human Rights Court Simulation (AHRCS and its Court\u27) took place in Taipei, Taiwan. The Court heard the case of Chiou Ho-shun v. ROC (Taiwan). The judges of the AHRCS consisted of experts in international human rights law; and observers from the media, scholars, government officials, and national and international human rights defenders were in attendance. Along with the hearings, the event included workshops on international human rights topics and a civil society dialogue. This article discusses issues surrounding the development, ecosystem, and future of the Court. The article first discusses the Asian perspective on human rights and the regionalization of human rights. The article then discusses the role of the AHRCS and the case of Chiou Ho-shun v. ROC (Taiwan). Importantly, the article discusses the role of civil society participation in the AHRCS and concludes with recommendations regarding an AHRCS Civil Society Organization Coordinator and a Special Rapporteur for follow-up matters