Online first
Artículos

AI in justice: Balancing Efficiency and Explicability

PDF (English) HTML (English)
Renzo Cavani
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3337

Publicado 2026-04-27

Cómo citar

Cavani, R. (2026). AI in justice: Balancing Efficiency and Explicability. Revista Ítalo-española De Derecho Procesal, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3337

Derechos de autor 2026 Renzo Cavani

Creative Commons License

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.

Resumen

AI systems intended for use in judicial procedure carry a significant commitment to efficiency –understood from an instrumental perspective– for which accurate predictions are paramount. However, if an AI system has this objective, it is inevitable that explicability will inevitably decrease. This means that the program’s algorithms are not comprehensible to humans, and often, neither is its output.  From an AI ethics standpoint, AI systems applied in the field of justice should possess a significant degree of explicability, yet this compromises efficiency. Therefore, this paper aims to 1) highlight the tension between efficiency and explicability; and 2) argue that, even adopting an AI human-centred approach, opaque systems prioritizing efficiency could be justified, depending on the specific function of the system; specifically, in the greater or lesser degree of interference with the judicial decision that must be justified.

PDF (English) HTML (English)

Descargas

Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Citas

  1. Ashley, K. D. (2017). Artificial Intelligence and Legal Analytics. New Tools for Law Practice in the Digital Era. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316761380
  2. Ariza Colmenarejo, M. J. (2023). Hacia la eficiencia digital y el refuerzo de las garantías procesales. In J. Caro Catalán, A. Sánchez Rubio, C. Durán Silva, & P. Pulido Manuz (Eds.), La optimización de la justicia: Reflexiones sobre la eficiencia procesal (pp. 15-36). Fundación Privada Manuel Serra Domínguez-Atelier.
  3. Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., García, S., Gil-López, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., Chatila, R., & Herrera, F. (2020). Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges Toward Responsible AI. Information Fusion, 58, 82-115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012
  4. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2012). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  5. Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
  6. Bench-Capon, T. J. M. (2017). HYPO’S Legacy: Introduction to the Virtual Special Issue. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 25, 205-250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9201-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-017-9201-1
  7. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Atkinson, K., Bex, F., Prakken, H., & Verheij, H. B. (2024). Computational models of legal argument. In D. Gabbay, G. Kern-Isberner, G. R. Simari & M. Thimm (Eds.). Handbook of Formal Argumentation, Vol. 3 (pp. 101-123). College Publications.
  8. Buijsman, S. (2022). Defining explanation and explanatory depth in XAI. Minds and Machines, 32, 563-584. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09607-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09607-9
  9. Buijsman, S., Klenk, M., & Van den Hoven, J. (2025). Ethics of AI: Toward a “design for values” approach. In N. Smuha (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Ethics and Policy of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 59-78). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009367783.005
  10. Bujosa Vadell, L. (2022). Ética e inteligencia artificial: una mirada desde el proceso jurisdiccional. Revista eletrônica de direito processual, 23(1), 733-768. https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2022.64391 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12957/redp.2022.64391
  11. Buttaboni, C. & Floridi, L. (2026). A regulatory taxonomy of AI opacity in the EU: Rethinking transparency, traceability, interpretability, and explainability. AI and Ethics, 6, 100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00940-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-025-00940-0
  12. Casacuberta, D., Guersenzvaig, A., & Moyano-Fernández, C. (2024). Justificatory explanations in machine learning: For increased transparency through documenting how key concepts drive and underpin design and engineering decisions. AI & Society, 39, 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01389-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01389-z
  13. Cavani, R. (2025). Precedente e inteligencia artificial: El impacto de los modelos predictivos en la teoría del precedente y la práctica judicial [Doctoral dissertation, Universitat de Girona]. https://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/694941
  14. Cavani, R. (forthcoming). Precedentes e inteligencia artificial: de la predicción a la justificación. Marcial Pons.
  15. Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). Artificial intelligence, responsibility attribution, and a relational justification of explainability. Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 2051-2068. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00146-8
  16. Demirbaga, Ü., Sungh Aujla, G., Jindal, A., & Kalyon, O. (2024). Big Data Analytics. Theory, Techniques, Platforms, and Applications. Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-55639-5
  17. EMC2 (2015). Data Science and Big Data Analytics: Discovering, Analyzing, Visualizing and Presenting Data. EMC Education Services-Wiley.
  18. Finck, M. (2026): The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: A Commentary. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law/9780198925705.001.0001
  19. Floridi, L. (ed.) (2012). The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  20. Floridi, L. (2013). The Ethics of Information. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199641321.001.0001
  21. Floridi, L. (2023). The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198883098.001.0001
  22. Future of Life Institute (2017). Asilomar AI Principles www.futureoflife.org/open-letter/ai-principles/
  23. Gatt, L., Lo Conte, M. T., & Mazzarella, M. E. (2025). Analysis and perspectives on the AI Act: scope and impact assessment. European Journal of Privacy Law & Technology, 2, 1-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.57230/ejplt252LGMTLCMEM
  24. Giabardo, C. V. (2022). Efficiency as a means and as and end: Some thoughts on happiness, wealth and justice in the legal economic debate. In D. Almanza Torres & M. Pereira Ribeiro (Coords.). A economia comportamental aplicada ao direito. Estudos sobre racionalidade, políticas públicas e leis (pp. 57-74). Ithala.
  25. Gioia, G. (2025). Intelligenza artificiale e indipendenza della magistratura: un equilibrio tra trasparenza e controllo. Rivista di Diritto Processuale, 80, 4, 1338-1363.
  26. Gray, M., Šavelka, J., Oliver, W., & Ashley, K. D. (2022). Toward automatically identifying legally relevant factors. In E. Francesconi, G. Borges & C. Sorge (Eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (pp. 53-62). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220448 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220448
  27. Gray, M., Šavelka, J., Oliver, W., & Ashley, K. D. (2023). Automatic identification and empirical analysis of legally relevant factors. In ICAIL ‘23: Proceedings of the Nineteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 101-110). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3594536.3595157 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3594536.3595157
  28. Gray, M., Šavelka, J., Oliver, W., & Ashley, K. D. (2023a). Can GPT alleviate the burden of annotation? In G. Sileno, G. Spanakis & G. van Dijck (Eds.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (pp. 157-166). IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA230961 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA230961
  29. Gray, M., Šavelka, J., Oliver, W., & Ashley, K. D. (2024). Empirical legal analysis simplified: Reducing complexity through automatic identification and evaluation of legally relevant factors, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A. Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, 382(2270), 20230155. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2023.0155 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2023.0155
  30. Gray, M., Šavelka, J., Oliver, W., & Ashley, K. D. (2024a). Using LLMs to discover legal factors, arXiv:2410.07504v1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5233950
  31. Gray, M., Li, Z., & Ashley, K. D. (2025). Generating case-based legal arguments with LLMs. In CSLAW’25: Proceedings of the 2025 Symposium on Computer Science and Law, March 25–27, 2025, München, Germany (pp. 160-168). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3709025.3712216 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3709025.3712216
  32. Greco, L. (2020). Poder de julgar sem responsabilidade do julgador: a impossibilidade jurídica do juiz-robô. Marcial Pons.
  33. Gunning, D., Stefik, M., Choi, J., Miller, T., Stumpf, S., & Yang, G-Z (2019). XAI - Explainable artificial intelligence. Science Robotics, 4(37). https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/scirobotics.aay7120
  34. Gupta, B. B., & Mamta (2024). Big Data Management and Analytics. World Scientific.
  35. Laux, J. (2023). Institutionalised Distrust and Human Oversight of Artificial Intelligence: Towards a Democratic Design of AI Governance Under the European Union AI Act. AI & Society, 39, 2853–2866 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01777-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01777-z
  36. Li, Z., Gray, M., Šavelka, J., & Ashley, K. D. (2025). Measuring faithfulness and abstention: An automated pipeline for evaluating LLM-generated 3-ply case-based legal arguments. arXiv:2506.00694v2.
  37. Lupo, G. (2022). The ethics of artificial intelligence: An analysis of ethical frameworks disciplining AI in justice and other contexts of application. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 12(3), 614-653. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1273 DOI: https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1273
  38. Hupont, I.; Fernández-Lorca, D.; Baldassari, S. & Gómez, E. (2024). Use Case Cards: A Use Case Reporting Framework Inspired by the European AI Act. Ethics and Information Technology, 26, 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09757-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-024-09757-7
  39. Meert, W., De Laet, T., & De Raedt, L. (2025). Artificial intelligence: A perspective from the field. In N. A. Smuha (Ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of the Law, Ethics and Policy of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 17-39). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009367783.003
  40. Mökander, J.; Juneja, P.; Walton, D. S. & Floridi, L. (2022). The US Algorithmic Accountability Act of 2022 vs. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act: What Can They Learn from Each Other? Minds and Machines, 32, 751-758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09612-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-022-09612-y
  41. Novelli, C.; Casolari, F.; Rotolo, A.; Taddeo, M. & Floridi, L. (2024). AI Risk Assessment: A Scenario-Based, Proportional Methodology for the AI Act. Digital Society, 3, 13 (original paper). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01723-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44206-024-00095-1
  42. Nieva Fenoll, J. (2025). Inteligencia artificial generativa (IAGen) y defensa: ¿Cómo lograr la “convicción” de una máquina? Revista Italo-Española de Derecho Procesal, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3204 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/3204
  43. Páez, A. (2019). The pragmatic turn in explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). Minds and Machines, 29, 441-459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09502-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-019-09502-w
  44. Páez, A. (forthcoming). Transparencia, explicabilidad y confianza en los sistemas de aprendizaje automático. In J. D. Gutiérrez & R. Manrique (Eds.). IA en acción: Desarrollo, impacto e implicaciones éticas en la sociedad. Uniandes.
  45. Santosuosso, A., & Sartor, G. (2022). La giustizia predittiva: una visione realistica. Giurisprudenza italiana (July 2022), 1759-1782.
  46. Santosuosso, A., & Sartor, G. (2024). Decidere con l’IA: Intelligenze artificiali e naturale nel diritto. Il Mulino.
  47. Simón Castellano, P. (2023). Taxonomía de las garantías jurídicas en el empleo de los sistemas de inteligencia artificial. Revista de Derecho Político, 117, May-August, 153-196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5944/rdp.117.2023.37929
  48. Simón Castellano, P. (2023a). Allende una teoría general de las garantías jurídicas para una inteligencia artificial confiable. In F. Balaguer Callejón & L. Cotino Hueso, Derecho público de la inteligencia artificial (pp. 111-148). Fundación Manuel Giménez Abad.
  49. Smuha, N. (2025). Algorithmic Rule by Law: How Algorithmic Regulation in the Public Sector Erodes the Rule of Law. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009427500
  50. Smuha, N. (forthcoming). Artificial Intelligence in the Judiciary: a Threat to the Rule of Law? In M. Zalnieriute & A. Limante (Eds.). The Cambridge Handbook of AI and Technologies in Courts. Cambridge University Press. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=6264778
  51. Turilli, M., & Floridi, L. (2009). The ethics of information transparency. Ethics and Information Technology, 11, 105-112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9187-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-009-9187-9
  52. Université de Montréal (2018). The Montréal Declaration for a Responsible Development of Artificial Intelligence https://montrealdeclaration-responsibleai.com/the-declaration/
  53. Van Dijck, G. (2022). Predicting Recidivism Risk Meets AI Act. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 28, 407-423 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09516-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-022-09516-8
  54. Walters, J.; Dey, D.; Bhaumik, D., & Horsman, S. (2024). Complying with the EU AI Act. Artificial Intelligence. In S. Nowaczyk et al. (Eds.) ECAI 2023 International Workshops. Kraków, Poland, September 30 – October 4, 2023 Proceedings, Part II (pp. 65-75). Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-50485-3_5

Update cookies preferences