Searching for the perfect judicial decision through technology

The current consecration of “algocracy”, where there is a tendency to algorithmically manage relationships in several spheres and at multiple levels of social relations, could not avoid reverberating on a domain that has always fearfully looked at the human nature of the decision-making process. Namely, that concerning the administration of justice and, specifically, the formulation of the judicial decision. Here, the standardized, a priori, predictable, and “certain” drafting of a judgment, while ostensibly aimed at remedying the evidence expressed by the well-known brocade “quot capita, tot sententiae”, tends to depict law enforcement as the result of computation rather than critical evaluation. Therefore, the drastic law-software perspective would come true. If the computer-issued judgment, declaratory and enforceable at the same time, should constitute, in the futuristic hypothesis advanced by a part of the legal-informatics doctrine, a mere tool at the service of blind compliance with legislation - as irrefutably fixed -, one ought to problematically consider the extent to which both initial and subsequent interpretative distortions and social errors of judgment could alter the picture of exact correspondence in the adaptation between abstract norm and concrete reality.