Banish all thoughts of robo-judges administering justice

We can always count on Tshilidzi Marwala to provoke people to think deeply about the role of technology in a changing society. However, his piece, “Help is close at hand in the fight against corruption: a superhero in the hi-tech age” (August 16), left me feeling very uncomfortable.

He argued that artificial intelligence (AI) can assist the fight against corruption, which I do not disagree with. After all, AI can provide law enforcement agencies with analytical capabilities that humans would have difficulty in matching.

But to argue that “AI has the potential to create a fairer justice system that would eliminate judges and deliver more impartial court rulings” takes the point to counterproductive, even dangerous, levels.

Estonia has been exploring the potential of robo-judges to clear case backlogs. However, it recognises that these robots should play a very limited role, such as in adjudicating on small claims cases, with a right of appeal to a human. The UK has been using chatbots to reconsider and even overturn traffic fines.

Some countries are looking at using AI to analyse judgments and predict case outcomes, often with remarkable accuracy. In some US states, algorithms are used to recommend sentences in criminal cases. In other words, the developing thinking is that AI should be confined to very limited uses in the administration of justice.

The argument that AI should replace judges, including in complex cases that involve high levels of human discretion, cannot be supported. This suggestion is particularly dangerous for constitutional cases where balancing of rights is needed and where context is all-important.

In criminal cases, how will an algorithm process remorse on the part of the accused, or empathy on the part of a judge? Emotions can be a precondition for fair adjudication, not a hindrance to it.

The example Marwala gave of how AI could remove bias in judgments — John Hlope’s attempts to influence the Constitutional Court — is problematic. After all, the Constitutional Court justices rebuffed Hlope’s efforts and complained about his conduct. That’s how the whole matter came to light. It is actually an argument for retaining human judges.

One of the developing social justice principles around AI is that if AI decisionmaking may lead to someone losing a right — their freedom of movement, for instance, through incarceration — there has to be a human in the loop.

Marwala portrays AI as being somehow impartial. But as we’ve seen from the controversies around facial recognition, biases are often baked into the algorithms, and can compound human prejudices.

This danger is particularly acute for the criminal justice system, as people can be (and have been) falsely accused of crimes on the basis of supposedly impartial AI decision-making. The algorithms used in recommending sentences have been criticised for being biased against black people.

We must have a different vision for how society takes up AI. We should start with a public debate, asking what jobs we want to apply AI to, and what jobs we want humans to do. I suspect that once we start having that kind of conversation, replacing judges with robots will be very far down the list of priorities, if it’s there at all. Professor Jane Duncan, head of department of journalism, film and television, University of Johannesburg

Cyril exposes his true colours

Our president nailed his colours to the mast when he declared that he would rather be regarded as a weak president than split the ANC — an ANC riddled with corruption and incompetence. He thus exposes himself as lacking the moral courage to reform this organisation.

Meanwhile, Peter Bruce continues to defend his call for everyone in the last election to vote for Ramaphosa. What he ignores is that this move of support for Ramaphosa hollowed out the DA, leading to a situation where most strong black leaders have been edged out and a pale minority are in charge. So the average voter, disgusted with the ANC, will not be tempted to vote for the DA, a party they do not regard as reflecting their interests.

In the previous elections I could not compromise my integrity by voting for a party that had inflicted so much damage, in the vain hope that one man, supported by a few buddies, would be our saviour.

This should have been obvious from the start, as Ramaphosa gave tacit support to Zuma through the dreadful years when our country was trashed.

Surely a split in the ANC would allow true change to occur? In its current form, the ANC is irredeemable.

In the meantime, there are a large number of us who love this country and long to see it flourish, left sitting between a rock and a hard place as we view our voting options.

Mr President, I appeal to you: surprise us all. Do the right thing and put the interests of our beloved country above destructive party politics.

Janet Mills, Cape Town

Gumede election a slap in the face

The election of former eThekwini mayor Zandile Gumede to the provincial legislature is a slap in the face for the people of KwaZulu-Natal.

It shows that the fight against corruption is just another talk shop — otherwise how would one deploy someone who is being charged by the National Prosecuting Authority?

The ANC national executive committee must make sure Gumede and other thugs in the ANC are not treated with kid gloves, otherwise the party will never be taken seriously in its fight against corruption.

Tom Mhlanga, Braamfontein

Write to PO Box 1742, Saxonwold 2132; SMS 33662; e-mail: tellus@sundaytimes.co.za; Fax: 011 280 5150 All mail should be accompanied by a street address and daytime telephone number. The Editor reserves the right to cut letters