The Uniqueness of Human Judgment in Legal Processes

It is unimaginable to picture a scenario where the role of a judge is entirely automated. Believe it or not, the very existence of a world divided into what is deemed 'right' or 'wrong' stands as a stark contrast to the incredibly complex and nuanced activities of human society. These activities cannot be judged with a simple dichotomy of right and wrong. Even our very vision is subject to limitations and biases. Consequently, it is the application of the human mind and empathy that shapes our judgment in complex scenarios—a capacity that machines do not possess. If automation were to replace the judge's role, the outcomes would be arbitrary and unpredictable, ultimately unappealing and unreasonable.

Legal Challenges and Appeal Courts

As we delve deeper into the hierarchy of courts, the challenges increase. Lower courts often make easier decisions about admissibility and other procedural objections, where computers could potentially assist. However, higher courts, especially appellate courts, deal with much more complex issues. These courts navigate through intricate policy arguments, exceptions to legal principles, and conflicts between common law, statute, and equity. They are tasked with resolving these multifaceted issues, which require a sophisticated understanding and application of legal principles, rather than just algorithmic decision-making.

The Complexity of Judicial Decision-Making

Judges often face situations where the outcome is not straightforward. For example, in their role as the 'finder of fact,' judges must assess the credibility of witnesses, a task that involves more than just reading the testimony. The non-verbal cues of a witness, such as body language and tone, often provide crucial insights that cannot be captured through written statements alone. Moreover, judges are often tasked with fashioning outcomes that consider more than just the facts, such as the criminal history of the defendant or the support system available to them.

One instance that stood out involved a civil case where I, as a special judge, found both sides at fault for various reasons. Neither party received everything they wanted, and the outcome was less than ideal. Reflecting on this experience, the judge I was serving under said, 'Anytime you send both parties home feeling frustrated, that's when you know you've had a good day on the bench.'

This statement highlights the essence of judicial decision-making: the need to navigate the complexities of human behavior, emotions, and circumstances, rather than relying solely on mechanical decision-making. The unpredictability and nuances of human behavior make it impossible to automate the role of a judge.