TY - JOUR
T1 - Preventing Machines From Lying
T2 - Why Interdisciplinary Collaboration is Essential for Understanding Artefactual or Artefactually Dependent Expert Evidence
AU - Wilson, Tim J.
AU - Bergman, Jesper
AU - Jackson, Adam
AU - Popov, Oliver B.
N1 - Funding Information: The authors received financial support for the research, authorship, and publication of this article from NordForsk, the Economic and Social Sciences Research Council (ESRC) and the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO) as funding for Police Detectives on the TOR-network: a Study on Tensions Between Privacy and Crime-Fighting (project no. 80512). The UK co-authors also received financial support for research utilised when writing this article from The European Commission as funding for the United Kingdom Prüm Fingerprint Evaluation Project (HOME/2012/ISEC/AG/4000004396) and the Prüm Implementation, Evaluation, and Strengthening of Forensic DNA Data Exchange (HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/PRUM/4000002150).
PY - 2024/4/1
Y1 - 2024/4/1
N2 - This article demonstrates a significantly different approach to managing probative risks arising from the complex and fast changing relationship between law and computer science. Law’s historical problem in adapting to scientific and technologically dependent evidence production is seen less as a socio-techno issue than an ethical failure within criminal justice and state institutions. This often arises because of an acceptance of epistemological incomprehension between lawyers and scientists. Something compounded by the political economy of criminal justice and safeguard evasion within state institutions. What is required is an exceptionally broad interdisciplinary collaboration to enable criminal justice decision-makers to understand and manage the risk of further ethical failure. If academic studies of law and technology are to address practitioner concerns, it may often be necessary, however, to step down the doctrinal analysis to a specific jurisdictional level.
AB - This article demonstrates a significantly different approach to managing probative risks arising from the complex and fast changing relationship between law and computer science. Law’s historical problem in adapting to scientific and technologically dependent evidence production is seen less as a socio-techno issue than an ethical failure within criminal justice and state institutions. This often arises because of an acceptance of epistemological incomprehension between lawyers and scientists. Something compounded by the political economy of criminal justice and safeguard evasion within state institutions. What is required is an exceptionally broad interdisciplinary collaboration to enable criminal justice decision-makers to understand and manage the risk of further ethical failure. If academic studies of law and technology are to address practitioner concerns, it may often be necessary, however, to step down the doctrinal analysis to a specific jurisdictional level.
KW - Explaining/understating AI/ML-assisted decisions
KW - interdisciplinary methodology in law and technology studies
KW - neoliberalism
KW - ethics and criminal justice systems
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85183011804&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/00220183231226087
DO - 10.1177/00220183231226087
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85183011804
SN - 0022-0183
VL - 88
SP - 105
EP - 129
JO - The Journal of Criminal Law
JF - The Journal of Criminal Law
IS - 2
ER -