No. 1 (2025)
Digitalization between regulation and institutionalization: impact on public decision-making (edited by the Scientific Council of the AIS Section of Sociology of Law and Deviance)

Artificial discretion and algorithmic judgment

pdf (Italiano)
Luigi Cominelli
University of Milan, Department of Legal Studies “C. Beccaria”
DOI: https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/28924

Published 2025-06-04

Keywords

  • law,
  • algorithm,
  • discretion,
  • decision,
  • administration,
  • jurisdiction
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Cominelli, L. (2025). Artificial discretion and algorithmic judgment. Sociologia Del Diritto, 52(1). https://doi.org/10.54103/1972-5760/28924

Copyright (c) 2025 Luigi Cominelli

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Abstract

The article explores the impact of digitisation and artificial intelligence (AI) on judicial and administrative systems, focusing on ‘artificial discretion’ and ‘digital justice’. Digitisation, in a broad sense, can simplify tasks, but its poor implementation can complicate processes further. AI technologies, by contrast, present qualitative challenges: they can automate learning and decision-making by adapting behaviour based on accumulated data. However, AI also entails the risk of errors. In the legal context, AI is unlikely to replace public policy analysis in the near future; instead, it is expected to support it, e.g., by analysing public sentiment on social networks and conducting more accurate impact assessments. ‘Digital justice’ includes the use of algorithms in judicial decisions, raising concerns about bias and prejudice. Although AI can support intellectual work, human decision-makers remain irreplaceable in many situations, particularly when discretion is required.
pdf (Italiano)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Aboraya, A., Rankin, E., France, C., El-Missiry, A., John, C. (2006). The Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis Revisited: The Clinician’s Guide to Improve the Reliability of Psychiatric Diagnosis. Psychiatry, 3, 1, pp. 41–50.
  2. Acemoglu, D., Restrepo, P., (2019). Automation and new tasks: How technology displaces and reinstates labor. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33, 2, pp. 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.33.2.3
  3. Acemoglu, D., Restrepo, P., (2020). The wrong kind of AI? Artificial intelligence and the future of labour demand. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 13, 1, pp. 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsz022
  4. Boussioux, L., N. Lane, J., Zhang, M., Jacimovic, V., Lakhani, K. R., (2023). The Crowdless Future? How Generative AI Is Shaping the Future of Human Crowdsourcing. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4533642
  5. Cassese, S. (2001). L’esplosione del diritto. Il sistema giuridico italiano dal 1975 al 2000. Sociologia Del Diritto, 28, 1, pp. 55–65.
  6. Coser, L. A. (1974). Greedy Institutions, New York, Free Press.
  7. Crozier, M. (1962). Administration et bureaucracie. In Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology. 2. Washington, DC: International Sociological Association.
  8. Danziger, S., Levav, J., Avnaim-Pesso, L. (2011). Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 17, 6889–6892. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018033108
  9. Dell’Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Lakhani, K. R., (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4573321
  10. Dressel, J., Farid, H. (2018). The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism. Science Advances, 4, 1, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aao5580
  11. Ebers, M., Trasberg, H. (2023). Delegation of Administrative Powers to AI Systems, in Ebers, M., Tupay, P.K., eds., Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Powered Public Service Delivery in Estonia, Cham, Springer, pp. 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19667-6_5
  12. Ebers, M., Tupay, P. K., Juksaar, J., Kohv, K. (2023). The Promise and Perils of AI and ML in Public Administration, in Ebers, M., Tupay, P.K., eds., Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Powered Public Service Delivery in Estonia, Cham, Springer, pp. 7-33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19667-6_2
  13. Faggin, F. (2022). Irriducibile. La coscienza, la vita, i computer e la nostra natura, Milano, Mondadori.
  14. Ferrari, V. (2020). Note socio-giuridiche introduttive per una discussione su diritto, intelligenza artificiale e big data, Sociologia del Diritto, 47, 3.
  15. Genn, H. (1993). Tribunals and Informal Justice. The Modern Law Review, 56, 3, pp. 393–411.
  16. Girotra, K., Meincke, L., Terwiesch, C., Ulrich, K. T. (2023). Ideas are Dimes a Dozen: Large Language Models for Idea Generation in Innovation. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4526071
  17. Grove, W. M., & Meehl, P. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: The Clinical-Statistical Controversy, Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 2, 2, pp. 293–323. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.2.2.293
  18. Kahneman, D., Sibony, O., Sunstein, C. R., (2021). Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgement, NewYork, Little, Brown and Company.
  19. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., (2000). Choices, Values, and Frames, in Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., eds., Choices, Values, and Frames, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  20. Kung, T. H., Cheatham, M., Medenilla, A., Sillos, C., De Leon, L., Elepaño, C., Tseng, V., (2023). Performance of ChatGPT on USMLE: Potential for AI-assisted medical education using large language models. PLOS Digital Health, 2, 2, e0000198. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000198
  21. Lexis Nexis. (2023). International Legal Generative AI Report.
  22. Lin, Z. J., Jung, J., Goel, S., Skeem, J. (2020). The limits of human predictions of recidivism, Science Advances, 6, 7, pp. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz0652
  23. Lobel, O. (2022). The Equality Machine. Harnessing Digitally Technology for a Brighter, More Inclusive Future, New York, PublicAffairs.
  24. Longo, J. (2022). When artificial intelligence meets real public administration. Canadian Public Administration, 65, 2, pp. 384–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12465
  25. Merton, R. K. (1983). Teoria e struttura sociale. I. Teoria sociologica e ricerca empirica, Bologna, Il Mulino.
  26. Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 2, pp. 223–244.
  27. Simonelli, M. A. (2020). Algoritmo versus ermeneutica giudiziaria. L’utopia della ‘matematizzazione’ del diritto, in Annali del Dipartimento Giuridico dell’Università degli Studi del Molise, Napoli, Edizioni scientifiche italiane, pp. 365–375.
  28. Susskind, R. (2023). Tomorrow’s Lawyers. An Introduction to your Future, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  29. Weber, M. (1995). Economia e società. IV. Sociologia politica, Torino, Edizioni di Comunità.
  30. Young, M. M., Bullock, J. B., Lecy, J. D., (2019). Artificial Discretion as a Tool of Governance: A Framework for Understanding the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Public Administration, Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2, 4, pp. 301–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz014.