智能司法视域下“类案同判”机制完善研究

The Improvement of “Same Judgment of Similar Cases” Mechanism from the Perspective of Intelligent Judicature

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者:

朱福勇

作者:

朱福勇1,2 ;刘睿思 ;罗佳雅

摘要:

"类案同判"既是维护司法权威和司法公信力的关键手段,也是"法律面前人人平等"这一宪法原则的有力彰显,既是权利与义务对等和社会和谐稳定的条件,又是全方位地推进依法治国的客观要求,其已成为当今世界各个国家和地区法律界的一项基本共识。由于立法的局限性、先例案例的性质不明、类案智能推送对法官裁量权的不当挤压、类案智能化适用效力的模糊性、算法的"黑箱"效应、类案智能监督的个性化以及类案智能检索与推送难以精准等方面的障碍,"类案异判"问题难以在根本上得到解决,一定程度上导致审判权运行失控,甚至沦为"权力寻租"的工具,对中国特色公正、高效和权威审判制度的完善产生实质性消极影响。为此,一方面,需要确立智能辅助的裁判理念,区分指导性案例、公报案例等不同情况,强化案例的智能指导,明确界定类案智能推送的范围;另一方面,应提高智能司法的算法透明度,建立算法备案审查追责制度,以及打破官方平台与商业平台壁垒,以留空密钥形式细化案件类型,健全类案智能检索与推送机制。

出版日期:

2021-12-31

学科:

法学

提交日期

2022-03-31

引用参考

朱福勇;刘睿思;罗佳雅. 智能司法视域下“类案同判”机制完善研究[J]. 应用法学评论,2021(01):3-20.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 智能司法视域下“类案同判”机制完善研究
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 朱福勇;刘睿思;罗佳雅
  • dc.contributor.author
  • Zhu Fuyong;Liu Ruisi;Luo Jiaya;School of Artificial Intelligence and Law, Southwest University of Political Science & Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学人工智能法学院;西南政法大学最高人民法院应用法学研究基地
  • dc.publisher
  • 应用法学评论
  • dc.publisher
  • Applied Law Review
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2021
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 01
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 3-20
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2021-12-31
  • dc.subject
  • 智能司法;类案同判;类案异判;司法公正
  • dc.subject
  • Intelligent justice;Same judgment of similar cases;Similar cases without similar trails;Judicial justice
  • dc.description.abstract
  • "类案同判"既是维护司法权威和司法公信力的关键手段,也是"法律面前人人平等"这一宪法原则的有力彰显,既是权利与义务对等和社会和谐稳定的条件,又是全方位地推进依法治国的客观要求,其已成为当今世界各个国家和地区法律界的一项基本共识。由于立法的局限性、先例案例的性质不明、类案智能推送对法官裁量权的不当挤压、类案智能化适用效力的模糊性、算法的"黑箱"效应、类案智能监督的个性化以及类案智能检索与推送难以精准等方面的障碍,"类案异判"问题难以在根本上得到解决,一定程度上导致审判权运行失控,甚至沦为"权力寻租"的工具,对中国特色公正、高效和权威审判制度的完善产生实质性消极影响。为此,一方面,需要确立智能辅助的裁判理念,区分指导性案例、公报案例等不同情况,强化案例的智能指导,明确界定类案智能推送的范围;另一方面,应提高智能司法的算法透明度,建立算法备案审查追责制度,以及打破官方平台与商业平台壁垒,以留空密钥形式细化案件类型,健全类案智能检索与推送机制。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • "Same Judgment of Similar Cases"is not only a significant means to maintain judicial credibility and judicial authority,but also a demonstration of the constitutional principle of"everyone is equal before the law"."Same Judgment of Similar Cases"is the equality of rights and obligations,conditions for social harmony and stability,as well as the impersonal requirement to comprehensively promote the rule of law,it has already become the consensus of the legal community in all countries and regions in the world.However,an array of issues such as the limitation of the legislation,the nature of the precedent cases,the unbalanced relationship between mechanism of intelligent recommended cases and the judge's discretionary power,the effectiveness of fuzziness of the recommended cases,the algorithm of"black box"effect,personalized supervision of the recommended cases mechanism,inaccuracy of intelligent case retrieval and push etc.,make it difficult to fundamentally resolve the problem of"Similar cases without similar trails",and lead to the result of uncontrollable judgement,even make the judicial power reduced to a"power rent-seeking"tool,which may cause a substantial negative impact on the improvement of our characteristic fair,efficient and authoritative trial system.Consequently,on the one hand,it is obliged to establish the concept of intelligent assisted judgment,distinguish different cases such as guiding cases and bulletin cases,strengthen the intelligent guidance of cases,and clearly define the scope of intelligent recommended cases mechanism.On the other hand,it is of great significance to enhance the algorithm transparency of intelligent justice,establish the algorithm filing,review and accountability system,break the barriers between official and commercial platforms,refine case types in the form of blank keys and improve the intelligent retrieval as well as recommended mechanism of similar cases.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 2019201910652056
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 2019年度重庆市大学生创新创业训练项目“智慧法院类案同判机制研究——以重庆市、广州市为样本的阶段性研究成果”(课题编号:201910652056)
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 0
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D916
回到顶部