论文标题

团结机器智能,大脑和行为科学以协助刑事司法

Uniting Machine Intelligence, Brain and Behavioural Sciences to Assist Criminal Justice

论文作者

Chén, Oliver Y.

论文摘要

我在这里讨论了机器智能,大脑和行为研究可以促进刑法的三个重要角色。首先,使用大脑和行为数据进行预测性建模可以通过预测与脑损伤和精神疾病有关的兴趣的绝对,连续和纵向法律结果来支持法律调查。其次,由机器学习算法支持的心理,精神病学和行为研究可能有助于预测人类的行为和行动,例如谎言,偏见和对犯罪现场的访问。第三,机器学习模型已用于使用临床和犯罪数据来预测累犯,而大脑解码开始基于脑成像数据来揭示一个人的思想和意图。在剥夺了成就和诺言之后,我研究了有关刑法中基于大脑和行为评估的准确性,可靠性和可重复性的担忧,以及有关数据拥有,道德,自由意志(自由意志和自动化),隐私和安全性的问题。此外,我将讨论与可预测性与解释性,人口级预测与个性化预测以及预测未来行动有关的问题,并概述了三种潜在的情况,可以将大脑和行为数据用作法院证据。综上所述,目前法律探索和决策中的大脑和行为解码是有希望的,但原始的。派生的证据是有限的,不应用于产生确定的结论,尽管可以在现有证据中加上或平行地使用它。最后,我建议在法律案件中需要以预测的方式使用(更精确的)有关何时何时何时以及何时不进行大脑和行为数据的定义和法规。

I discuss here three important roles where machine intelligence, brain and behaviour studies together may facilitate criminal law. First, predictive modelling using brain and behaviour data may support legal investigations by predicting categorical, continuous, and longitudinal legal outcomes of interests related to brain injury and mental illnesses. Second, psychological, psychiatric, and behavioural studies supported by machine learning algorithms may help predict human behaviour and actions, such as lies, biases, and visits to crime scenes. Third, machine learning models have been used to predict recidivism using clinical and criminal data whereas brain decoding is beginning to uncover one's thoughts and intentions based on brain imaging data. Having dispensed with achievements and promises, I examine concerns regarding the accuracy, reliability, and reproducibility of the brain- and behaviour-based assessments in criminal law, as well as questions regarding data possession, ethics, free will (and automatism), privacy, and security. Further, I will discuss issues related to predictability vs. explainability, population-level prediction vs. personalised prediction, and predicting future actions, and outline three potential scenarios where brain and behaviour data may be used as court evidence. Taken together, brain and behaviour decoding in legal exploration and decision-making at present is promising but primitive. The derived evidence is limited and should not be used to generate definitive conclusions, although it can be potentially used in addition, or parallel, to existing evidence. Finally, I suggest that there needs to be (more precise) definitions and regulations regarding when and when not brain and behaviour data can be used in a predictive manner in legal cases.

扫码加入交流群

加入微信交流群

微信交流群二维码

扫码加入学术交流群,获取更多资源