人工智能司法的道德重构与实践路径
Moral Reconstruction and Practical Path of Artificial Intelligence Justice
DOI: 10.12677/ds.2025.1110319, PDF,   
作者: 程鸿燕:青岛科技大学法学院,山东 青岛
关键词: 人工智能司法改革数据伦理算法权力Artificial Intelligence Judicial Reform Date Ethics Algorithm Power
摘要: 人工智能辅助法官在司法领域的应用引发的一系列争议,其底层根源主要在于人工智能技术的介入冲击了司法的公正性与其所具有的鲜明的价值判断特征。由于人工智能的介入还为法官所要坚守的衡量标准注入了除了事实与法律之外的其它要素,从而使得审判权的独立性被其它因素所干扰,法官失去了裁判的自由度,司法也便失去了最基本的道德基础。在这种情形下,应取其人工智能司法的优势,又要剔除其隐藏着的对传统司法规律的逆向运行、伦理冲突、隐私泄露、算法歧视以及权责主体认定困难等深层次问题,坚持人工智能在司法领域的“参考性”角色地位,克服算法权力带来的正义怀疑、数据伦理等负面效应,坚守法官作为案件的最终裁决者与中立地位这根红线,夯牢算法运用的道德性根基与规则,规避司法风险,为司法领域累积发展新势能。
Abstract: The application of artificial intelligence assisted judges in the judicial field has caused widespread controversy, and its underlying root lies mainly in the impact of artificial intelligence technology on the fairness of the judiciary and its distinct value judgment characteristics. The intervention of artificial intelligence injects factors other than facts and law into the measurement standards that judges need to adhere to during trials, and Inappropriate interference from other factors affects the independence of judicial power, causing judges to lose their freedom of judgment and the judiciary to lose its most basic moral foundation. In this situation, we should take advantage of the advantages of artificial intelligence in judicial affairs, while also eliminating deep-seated problems such as the reverse operation of traditional judicial laws, ethical conflicts, privacy leaks, algorithm discrimination, and difficulties in determining rights and responsibilities. We should adhere to the “reference” role of artificial intelligence in the judicial field, overcome the negative effects of algorithmic power such as doubts about justice and data ethics, adhere to the red line of judges as the final adjudicators and neutral status of cases, consolidate the moral foundation and rules of algorithm application, avoid judicial risks, and accumulate new development momentum for the judicial field.
文章引用:程鸿燕. 人工智能司法的道德重构与实践路径[J]. 争议解决, 2025, 11(10): 158-164. https://doi.org/10.12677/ds.2025.1110319

参考文献

[1] 张玉洁. 人工智能辅助量刑的法律风险与制度建构[J]. 学术交流, 2023(3): 60-70.
[2] 桑本谦. 科技进步与中国刑法的近现代变革[J]. 政法论坛, 2014(5): 39-51.
[3] 丹尼斯·帕特森, 沈烨娜. 理论争议、法律实证主义与解释[J]. 法律方法, 2024, 46(1): 71-82.
[4] 谢佑平. 人工智能时代我国刑事司法改革的双重使命[J]. 政法论丛, 2024(5): 84-98.
[5] 徐阳, 魏溢男. 人工智能时代证明标准客观化的负效应及其克服[J]. 齐鲁学刊, 2024(1): 82-96.
[6] 韩旭至. 数字司法与人工智能治理的中国方案[J]. 华东政法大学学报, 2025, 28(1): 5.
[7] 孙道萃. 人工智能辅助量刑的实践回视与理论供给[J]. 学术界, 2023(3): 112-128.
[8] 丁晓东. 人机交互决策下的智慧司法[J]. 法律科学(西北政法大学学报), 2023, 41(4): 58-68.
[9] 衣俊霖. 论人机协同审判的信任构建[J]. 中国法学, 2025(2): 148-167.
[10] 雷磊. 数字司法的理论反思: 意义、问题与监管[J]. 交大法学, 2024(6): 86-100.
[11] 季卫东. 数据与算法驱动的中国司法现代化[J]. 中国法律评论, 2024(4): 87-101.
[12] 曲天明, 陈慧婷. 论算法权力异化的法律规制[J]. 青岛科技大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 38(4): 108-113.
[13] 洪涛. 正当程序视角下人工智能辅助量刑的挑战与重塑[J]. 东北大学学报(社会科学版), 2025, 27(2): 111-120.
[14] 丁晓东. 全球比较下的我国人工智能立法[J]. 比较法研究, 2024(4): 51-66.
[15] 蔡立东, 郝乐. 司法大数据辅助审判应用限度研究[J]. 浙江社会科学, 2022(6): 52-62+156.
[16] 雷婉璐. 智能辅助审判技术下法官问责难题的破解路径[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报(社会科学版), 2022, 24(2): 35-41.
[17] 王燕玲. 人工智能法律应用的发展瓶颈及方法论应对[J]. 政法论丛, 2025(2): 141-155.
[18] 王一岩, 郑永和. 智能时代的人机协同学习: 价值内涵、表征形态与实践进路[J]. 中国电化教育, 2022(9): 90-97.