The Weight of Justice: Why Human Judgment Must Prevail

The justice system isn't just another sector ripe for technological disruption – it's the bedrock of our society. Judges are entrusted with making decisions that irrevocably alter people's lives. Every day, courts determine who raises children, whether someone is evicted or not and who goes to jail or receives a second chance at life. These aren't abstract data points or business metrics; they're profound decisions that demand empathy, experience, and the kind of nuanced judgment that comes only from years of practice.

This is precisely why suggestions that Large Language Models (LLMs) should "do the heavy lifting" in judicial work are not just misguided, but potentially dangerous. While AI can analyze data and draft documents with remarkable speed, it fundamentally lacks the ability to understand context, exercise moral reasoning, or grasp the weight of its conclusions. Justice requires more than processing information – it demands the kind of wisdom that can only be forged through years of witnessing how judicial decisions reshape lives.

Consider what's at stake: Judges deciding custody aren’t just applying legal standards; they're determining whether a child grows up seeing one parent every day or once a month. A criminal sentencing isn't merely about guidelines and precedents; it's about balancing justice for victims, the possibility of rehabilitation, and the safety of our communities. These decisions require a nuanced understanding of human behavior, community impact, and moral implications that no algorithm, however sophisticated, can fully comprehend.

But this article isn't about resisting technology. AI can be an invaluable tool when used appropriately – streamlining administrative tasks, analyzing case law, drafting orders or helping to summarize documents. We must be extremely thoughtful though about how we use these tools, particularly in drafting opinions. While AI might assist with certain aspects of writing, allowing it to generate first drafts, especially without having a real understanding of how to prompt the LLM properly, risks ceding too much control over the direction, narrative and reasoning. The voice of a judicial opinion matters – it reflects not just conclusions, but the careful thought process and legal reasoning that led there. No parent should ever have to hear that they might have received custody of their children if the judge had used Grok instead of ChatGPT. When we let AI set the initial direction, we risk allowing technology to shape our legal analysis rather than the other way around. This is why there must always be an experienced human in the loop, someone who understands the tech and understands that behind every case number is a real person whose future hangs in the balance.

The justice system exists to serve the people, not efficiency metrics. When we forget this, when we prioritize automation over judgment, we risk losing the very essence of justice itself. I frequently hear well-meaning arguments for expanding AI's role in judicial decision-making. Advocates point to overwhelmed courts, mounting case backlogs, and the promise of swift, consistent decisions through automation. They argue that justice delayed is justice denied, and that AI could help clear dockets and accelerate the wheels of justice.

These concerns about court efficiency and access are valid and deserve serious attention. But we must be exceedingly careful not to let the pressure for speed and efficiency drive us toward solutions that undermine the fundamental nature of our justice system. Our courts aren't merely dispute resolution centers – they are constitutional institutions, carefully designed to protect individual rights and uphold the rule of law in a democratic society. Every judicial decision not only resolves an individual case but also interprets and reinforces the laws established by our representative government.

For those who prioritize speed and efficiency above all else, there are alternatives. Private dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation and arbitration already offer parties more flexibility in how their cases are handled. These forums can and should feel free to experiment with AI-driven decision-making if that's what participants choose. But our constitutional system of justice – with its fundamental guarantees of due process, equal protection, and human judgment – must remain intact.

This distinction is crucial. The stakes are simply too high to delegate our most important decisions to machines, no matter how impressive their capabilities may seem. The future of justice must balance technological advancement with the preservation of human judgment, constitutional principles, and the rule of law.

Subscribe to my Substack newsletter today so you don’t miss out on a post. https://judgeschlegel.substack.com