Towards automated recommendations for drunk driving penalties in Poland - a case study analysis in selected court

• Autorzy: Kiejnich-Kruk Karolina , Twardawa Mateusz , Formanowicz Piotr

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/fcds-2023-0019

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Depending on the legal system, judges may have varying degrees of discretion in determining the type and extent of sentence that can be imposed for a particular offence. Nevertheless, it appears that even in systems traditionally considered discretionary, accepted patterns play a significant role in determining penalties, and judges utilize merely a limited spectrum of potential penalties in repetitive cases. Confirmation of the predictability of sentencing in certain categories of cases facilitates the possibility of automation. Utilising a computer program to assist judges in sentencing proposals based on input is feasible. This program can reflect the standard practice of sentencing penalties and punitive measures in a particular category of cases or rectify it, depending on the adopted sentencing policy. The objective of the article is to present findings from research that investigated whether a specific relation shapes the dimension of penalties and penal measures for cases concerning driving under the influence of alcohol in Poland, in the context of possible automation of the sentencing process. Another aim of this study is to provide an example of a straightforward mathematical recommendation model that tries to reflect both the discovered correlations in the data and the presumed intentions of legislators.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

automation; sentencing guidelines; digitalization of justice

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej
• Czasopismo: Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences
• Rocznik: 2023
• Tom: Vol. 48, No. 4
• Strony: 425--451
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 62 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Kiejnich-Kruk Karolina

• Department of Criminal Proceedings, Faculty of Law and Administration, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan Poland

autor

Twardawa Mateusz

• ICT Security Department, Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center, Poznan, Poland
• Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

autor

Formanowicz Piotr

• Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, Poznan, Poland

Bibliografia

• [1] Agthe M., Spörrle M., Maner J., Does Being Attractive Always Help? Positive and Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Social Decision Making, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2011, p. 1042.
• [2] Ashworth A. and Roberts J. V. (eds) Sentencing guidelines: Exploring the English model, Oxford University Press: Oxford, England 2013.
• [3] Bacik I., The Courts: Consistent Sentencing?, Irish Quarterly Review 88, 164,1999.
• [4] Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., Walker S., Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1, 2015, pp. 1-48.doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
• [5] Bennett H., Broe T., Judicial Neurobiology, Markarian Synthesis and Emotion: How Can the Human Brain Make Sentencing Decisions?, Criminal Law Journal, no. 75, 2007, p. 84.
• [6] Chisholm R., Values and Assumptions in Judicial Cases, National Judicial College Conference: Judicial Reasoning - Art or Science?, Canberra, 7-8 February 2009.
• [7] Danziger S., Levav J., Avnaim-Pesso L., Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 17, 2011, pp. 6889-6892.
• [8] Dasgupta A., Alcohol a double-edged sword: Health benefits with moderate consumption but a health hazard with excess alcohol intake in: Alcohol, Drugs, Genes and the Clinical Laboratory, eds: Amitava Dasgupta, Academic Press, 2017, pp.1-21.
• [9] Dhami M. K., Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: Missed Opportunities?, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76, 289, 2013, 302.
• [10] Dhami M. K., Quasirational Models of Sentencing, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 2015, 239-247.
• [11] Douglas R., Does the Magistrate Matter? Sentencers and Sentence in the Victorian Magistrates’ Courts, 22, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40, 50, 1989.
• [12] Duff R. A., Guidance and Guidelines, Columbia Law Review, 105, pp. 1162-1164, 2005.
• [13] Edwards G. et al, The Effects of Voluntary and Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines, Texas Law Review, 98, 1 (2019).
• [14] Franko Aas K., Sentencing in the Age of Information: From Faust to Macintosh, 2005, pp. 24-26.
• [15] Hao K., Stray J., Can you make AI fairer than a judge? Play our courtroom algorithm game, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/17/75285/ai-fairer-than-judge-criminal-risk-assessment-algorithm/ (accessed: 4 March 2023).
• [16] Harris C. R., Millman K. J., van der Walt S. J., Gommers R., Virtanen P.,Cournapeau D., Oliphant, T. E., Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585, 2020, 357-362.
• [17] Hassemer W., Juristische Methodenlehre und Richterliche Pragmatik, 39 Rechtstheorie 1, 17, 20, 2008.
• [18] Herz C., Striving for Consistency: Why German Sentencing Needs Reform, German Law Journal, 21, 2020, p. 1631.
• [19] Hörnle T., Strafzumessungslehre im Lichte des Grundgesetzes, in: Das strafende Gesetz im sozialen Rechtsstaat, ed. Eva Schumann, De Gruyter, 2010, p. 121.
• [20] Hunter J. D., ”Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment”, Computing in Science& Engineering, 9, 3, 2007, pp. 90-95.
• [21] Kaczmarek T., Problemy indywidualizacji wymiaru kary sprawiedliwej i celowej, in: Dyrektywy sądowego wymiaru kary, ed. Majewski J., Warsaw 2014, p. 21.
• [22] Kantner R., Kukkonen C., An introduction to risk of Al for general counsel, 2018 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/11/an-introduction-to-the-risks-of-ai-for-general-counse/ (accessed: 1 May 2021).
• [23] Kaspar J., Deutschen Juristentag: sentencing guidelines versus freies tatrichterliches ermessen–brauchen wir ein neues strafzumessungsrecht?, 2018, p. 50 and p.107.
• [24] Kirby M., Judging: Reflections on the Moment of Decision, Australian Bar Review, 4, 1999, p. 19.
• [25] Krasnostein S., Freiberg A., Pursuing Consistency In An Individualistic Sentencing Framework: If You Know Where You’re Going, How Do You Know When You’ve Got There?, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76, 2013, pp. 265-288.
• [26] Larson J., Mattu S., Kirchner L., Angwi J., How We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm, https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm (accessed: 4 March 2023).
• [27] Lawrence J. A., Homel J. R., Sentencer and Offender Factors as Sources of Discrimination in Magistrates’ Penalties for Drinking Drivers, Social Justice Research 5, 385, 1992.
• [28] Markiewicz L., Markiewicz-Żuchowska A., Skłonności poznawcze sędziego wpływające na wysokość wymierzonej kary, Decyzje, 12, 2012, p. 62.
• [29] Mason K., Unconscious Judicial Prejudice, Australian Law Journal 2001, pp. 676-680.
• [30] Meier B.-D., Regionale Justizkulturen in der Strafrechtspraxis: ein Problem für den Rechtsstaat? in: Justizvollzug und Strafrechtsreform im Bundesstaat, eds. Axel Dessecker & Rudolf Egg, Kriminologische Zentralstelle, 2011.
• [31] Niller E., Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So, https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/ (accessed: 4 March 2023).
• [32] O’Connell F., Comparative Research Into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms, Northern Ireland Assembly, 610, 10, 2011.
• [33] O’Malley T., Living Without Guidelines, in: Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model, eds. Ashworth A. and Roberts J.V., 2005, Oxford University Press, p. 219, 2005.
• [34] Pina-Sanchez J., Linacre R., Enhancing Consistency in Sentencing: Exploring the Effects of Guidelines in England and Wales, Journal of Quantitative Criminology,30, 4, 2014, pp. 731.
• [35] Quintanilla V., Different Voices: A Gender Difference when Reasoning about the Letter Versus Spirit of the Law, Law and Society Conference, Honolulu, June, 2012.
• [36] Reiling A. D., Courts and Artificial Intelligence, International Journal for Court Administration, 11, 2, 2020, p. 3.
• [37] Roberts J. V. et al, Individualisation at Sentencing: the Effects of Guidelines and ’Preferred’ Numbers, Criminal Law Review, 2, 123, 2018.
• [38] Roberts J. V., The Evolution of Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales, Crime and Justice, 48, 2019.
• [39] Streng F., Perspektiven für die Strafzumessung, Strafverteidiger, 38, 593, 2018,p. 594.
• [40] Tang Y., Horikoshi M., Li W., “ggfortify: Unified Interface to Visualize Statistical Result of Popular R Packages.”, The R Journal, 8, 2, 2016, pp. 474-485.
• [41] Tierney Cf. J., Do You Suffer from Decision Fatigue? New York Times (online), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r-2&pagewanted=1 (accessed: 4 March 2023).
• [42] Tonry M., Sentencing Fragments: Penal Reform in America, 1975-2025, Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 33.
• [43] Van Meter M., One Judge Makes the Case for Judgment, The Atlantic magazine, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/one-judge-makes-the-case-for-judgment/463380/ (accessed: 16 August 2023).
• [44] Venables W. N., Ripley B. D., Modern Applied Statistics with S, Fourth edition, Springer, New York, 2002.
• [45] Verrel T., Brauchen wir ein neues Strafzumessungsrecht?, Juristen Zeitung, 73, 811, 2018, p. 813.
• [46] Virtanen R., Gommers R., Oliphant T. E., Haberland M., Reddy T., Cournapeau D., Burovski E., Peterson P., Weckesser W., Bright J., van der Walt S. J., Brett M., Wilson J., Millman K. J., Mayorov N., Nelson A. R. J., Jones E., Kern R., Larson E., Carey C. J., Polat İ., Feng Y., Moore E. W., VanderPlas J., Laxalde D., Perktold J., Cimrman R., Henriksen I., Quintero E. A., Harris Ch. R., Archibald A. M., Ribeiro A. H., Pedregosa F., van Mulbregt P., and SciPy 1.0 Contributors, SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. NatureMethods, 17, 3, 2020, pp. 261-272.
• [47] Waskom, M. L., seaborn: statistical data visualization. Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 60, 2021.
• [48] Whitman J. Q., Equality in Criminal Law: The Two Divergent Western Roads, Journal Legal Analysis, 1, 119, 2009.
• [49] Wickham H., ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis, Springer-Verlag, NewYork, 2016.
• [50] Wróbel W., Granice racjonalizacji sądowego wymiaru kary, in: Dyrektywy sądowego wymiaru kary, ed. Majewski J., Warsaw, 2014, p. 45-46.
• [51] case of Kudła v. Poland, app. 30210/96, HUDOC (accessed: 23 August 2023).
• [52] case of Rutkowski and others v. Poland, app. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11,HUDOC (accessed: 23 August 2023).
• [53] Cf. COM (2021) 206: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts, European Commission, 2011.
• [54] Data quality and artificial intelligence - mitigating bias and error to protect fundamental rights, FRA, 2019, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/data-quality-and-artificial-intelligence-mitigating-bias-and-error-protect (accessed: 4March 2023).
• [55] Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 89-131.
• [56] European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment, Council of Europe, Strasburg, 2018.
• [57] Ministry of Justice, Podstawowa informacja o działalności sądów powszechnych - 2016 rok na tle poprzednich okresów statystycznych, 2017,https://isws.ms.gov.pl/pl/baza-statystyczna/publikacje/download,2779,0.html, (accessed: 23 August 2023).
• [58] Postępowania wszczęte, nietrzeźwi kierujący w ruchu drogowym wg jednostek organizacyjnych Policji, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/https-dane-gov-pl-pl-dataset-3290-dane-o-przestepczosci-w-latach-1999-2022?locale=en (accessed: 23 August 2023).
• [59] Prowadzenie pojazdu w stanie nietrzeźwości, https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/przestepstwa-ogolem/przestepstwa-drogowe/prowadzenie-pojazdu-w-s/122332,Prowadzenie-pojazdu-w-stanie-nietrzezwosci.html (accessed: 23 August 2023).
• [60] Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance), OJL 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1-88.
• [61] Sentencing guidelines mechanisms in other jurisdictions, Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Information Service, 2016.
• [62] U.K. Sentencing Council, Analytical Note: The Resource Effects of Increased Consistency in Sentencing 3.1 (2011).

Uwagi

Opracowanie rekordu ze środków MNiSW, umowa nr SONP/SP/546092/2022 w ramach programu "Społeczna odpowiedzialność nauki" - moduł: Popularyzacja nauki i promocja sportu (2024).