Abstract
Motivated by the broader issues of open justice and access to justice, this paper explores the ethical application of judicial analytics through the lens of an assessment of readability of written judicial decisions. To that end the paper aims 1) to review and reproduce for the UK context previous work that assesses readability of legal texts, and 2) to reflect critically on the ethical implications of applied judicial analytics. Focusing on the use case of assessing the readability of judicial Immigration and Asylum decisions in the UK, we put forward recommendations for ethical judicial analytics that aim to produce results that meet the needs of and are accepted by the stakeholders of the legal system.
This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/P000630/1]. We thank Gregory Tourte for his valuable technical contributions.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
It should be noted, however, that readability formulas were never meant as a writing guide, though writing guidelines can be deduced accordingly [21].
- 2.
Short for ‘Simple Measure of Gobbledygok’ [see 42].
- 3.
Others do not find an effect of the type of judicial retention on opinion clarity [22].
- 4.
- 5.
Checking the robots.txt-file revealed no restrictions on such scraping activity.
References
Alschner, W., D’Alimonte, D., Giuga, G.C., Gadbois, S.: Plain language assessment of statutes. In: Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: Proceedings of the 33rd JURIX Annual Conference, pp. 207–2010. IOS Press (2020). http://ebooks.iospress.nl/ISBN/978-1-64368-049-1
AoIR: The association of internet researchers ethics framework (2019). https://aoir.org/ethics/
Assy, R.: Can the law speak directly to its subjects? The limitation of plain language. J. Law Soc. 38(3), 376–404 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00549.x
George Benjamin, R.: Reconstructing readability: recent developments and recommendations in the analysis of text difficulty. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 24(1), 63–88 (2012). ISSN 1573-336X. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9181-8
Bufithis, G.: Understanding the French ban on judicial analytics (2019). https://www.gregorybufithis.com/2019/06/09/understanding-the-french-ban-on-judicial-analytics/
Burridge, A., Gill, N.: Conveyor-belt justice: precarity, access to justice, and uneven geographies of legal aid in UK asylum appeals. Antipode 49(1), 23–42 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12258
Butt, P.: The assumptions behind plain legal language. Hong Kong LJ 32, 173 (2002)
Campbell Pearson, W.: Clarity in the Court of Appeal: measuring the readability of judgments. Bachelor thesis, law, University of Otago (2013)
Crossley, S.A., Skalicky, S., Dascalu, M., McNamara, D.S., Kyle, K.: Predicting text comprehension, processing, and familiarity in adult readers: new approaches to readability formulas. Discourse Process. 54(5–6), 340–359 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1296264
Crossley, S.A., Skalicky, S., Dascalu, M.: Moving beyond classic readability formulas: new methods and new models. J. Res. Read. 42(3–4), 541–561 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12283
Curtotti, M., McCreath, E.: Right to access implies right to know: an open online platform for research on the readability of law. J. Open Access Law 1(1), 1–56 (2013)
Curtotti, M., McCreath, E., Bruce, T., Frug, S., Weibel, W., Ceynowa, N.: Machine learning for readability of legislative sentences. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ICAIL 2015, New York, NY, USA, pp. 53–62, 2015. Association for Computing Machinery. ISBN 9781450335225. https://doi.org/10.1145/2746090.2746095
Daily, C.M., Dorsey, R.W., Kumar, G.: Readability of tax court opinions. In: Stock, T. (ed.) Advances in Taxation, vol. 19, pp. 171–183. Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2010). https://doi.org/10.1108/S1058-7497(2010)0000019009
Dale, E., Chall, J.S.: The concept of readability. Element. Eng. 26(1), 19–26 (1949). ISSN 00135968. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41383594
Duffy, T.M.: Readability formulas: what’s the use? In: Duffy, T.M., Waller, R. (eds.) Designing Usable Texts, chapter 6, pp. 113–143. Academic Press (1985). ISBN 978-0-12-223260-2. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-223260-2.50011-6
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ): Cepej European ethical charter on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial systems and their environment (2019)
Elliot, M., Mackey, E., O’Hara, K.: The anonymisation decision-making framework 2nd edn. European practitioners’ guide. UKAN (2020)
Everson, E.: Privacy by design: taking ctrl of big data. Cleveland State Law Rev. 65, 27 (2017)
Fix, M.P., Fairbanks, B.R.: The effect of opinion readability on the impact of U.S. supreme court precedents in state high courts. Soc. Sci. Q. 101(2), 811–824 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12752
François, T., Miltsakaki, E.: Do NLP and machine learning improve traditional readability formulas? In: Proceedings of the First Workshop on Predicting and Improving Text Readability for target reader populations, Montréal, Canada, pp. 49–57, June 2012. Association for Computational Linguistics (2012)
Fry, E.B.: Writeability: the principles of writing for increased comprehension. In: Zakaluk, B.L., Samuals, S.J. (eds.) Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future, chapter 5, Newark, Delaware, pp. 77–97. International Reading Association (1988)
Goelzhauser, G., Cann, D.M.: Judicial independence and opinion clarity on state supreme courts. State Politics Pol. Q. 14(2), 123–141 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1177/1532440013520241
Horton, B.G., Thompson, L.R.: Jury instructions: are they too complicated for jurors to understand? Commun. Law Rev. 4, 1–8 (2002)
Klare, G.R.: Assessing readability. Read. Res. Q. 10(1), 62–102 (1974). ISSN 00340553. http://www.jstor.org/stable/747086
Martindale, B.C., Koch, B.S., Karlinsky, S.S.: Tax law complexity: the impact of style. J. Bus. Commun. (1973) 29(4), 383–400 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369202900405
Martínez, A., da Silva, R.: Tax law readability and tax complexity (2019)
McGill, J., Salyzyn, A.: Judging by numbers: how will judicial analytics impact the justice system and its stakeholders? Working paper, Ottawa Faculty of Law (2020)
Jerry McHale, M.: What does “access to justice” mean? UVic Ace (2016). http://www.uvicace.com/blog/2016/2/2/what-does-access-to-justice-mean
Mindlin, M.: Is plain language better a comparative readability study of court forms. Scribes J. Legal Writ. 10, 55–66 (2005)
Nelson, M.N.: Elections and explanations: judicial retention and the readability of judicial opinions (2013). http://mjnelson.wustl.edu/papers/NelsonReadabilityAugust2013.pdf
Petrozzino, C.: Big data analytics: ethical considerations make a difference. Scitech Lawyer 16(3), 14–21 (2020)
Pikulski, J.J.: Readability. Houghton Mifflin, Boston (2002)
Pitler, E., Nenkova, A.: Revisiting readability: a unified framework for predicting text quality. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, EMNLP 2008, USA, pp. 186–195. Association for Computational Linguistics (2008)
Samaha, A.M.: Judicial transparency in an age of prediction symposium: the future of judicial transparency - panel one: transparent virtues. Villanova Law Rev. 53, 829 (2008)
Sikkema, T.: Does plain language only benefit the higher literate? avoiding the Matthew-effect in plain language revisions. Clarity J. 80, 19–22 (2019). ISSN 2378-2056
Spencer, S.B., Feldman, A.: Words count: the empirical relationship between brief writing and summary judgment success. Legal Writ. J. Legal Writ. Inst. 22, 61–108 (2018)
Stalla-Bourdillon, S., Knight, A.: Legal and privacy toolkit v1.0 (2017)
Sullivan, R.: The promise of plain language drafting. McGill LJ 47, 97 (2001)
Sung, Y.-T., Chen, J.-L., Cha, J.-H., Tseng, H.-C., Chang, T.-H., Chang, K.-E.: Constructing and validating readability models: the method of integrating multilevel linguistic features with machine learning. Behav. Res. Methods 47(2), 340–354 (2014). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-014-0459-x
Todirascu, A., François, T., Gala, N., Fairon, C., Ligozat, A.-L., Bernhard, D.: Coherence and cohesion for the assessment of text readability. In: Proceedings of 10th International Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Cognitive Science (NLPCS 2013), Marseille, France, pp. 11–19, October 2013. https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00860796
Wahlstrom, K., Roddick, J.F., Sarre, R., Estivill-Castro, V., deVries, D.: On the ethical and legal implications of data mining. School of Informatics and Engineering Flinders University (2006)
Whalen, R.: Judicial gobbledygook: the readability of Supreme Court writing. Yale Law J. Forum 125(19), 200–211 (2015)
Williams, C.: Changing with the times: the evolution of plain language in the legal sphere. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 28, 183–203 (2015). https://doi.org/10.14198/raei.2015.28.10
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Scheinert, L., Tonkin, E.L. (2021). Towards Ethical Judicial Analytics: Assessing Readability of Immigration and Asylum Decisions in the United Kingdom. In: Marreiros, G., Melo, F.S., Lau, N., Lopes Cardoso, H., Reis, L.P. (eds) Progress in Artificial Intelligence. EPIA 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12981. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86230-5_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86230-5_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-86229-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-86230-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)