Law Commons^™

When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, And Executioner: Justice In The Age Of Artificial Intelligence (Book Review), Stacy Fowler

Faculty Articles

In When Machines Can Be Judge, Jury, and Executioner, former federal judge Katherine Forrest raises concerns over the pervasive use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the American justice system to produce risks and need assessments (RNA) regarding the probability of recidivism for citizens charged with a crime. Forrest’s argument centers on AI’s primary focus on utilitarian outcomes when assessing liberty for individual citizens. This approach leads Forrest to the conclusion that in its current form, AI is “ill-suited to the criminal justice context.” Forrest contends that AI should instead be programmed to focus on John Rawl’ 'concept of justice as …

Ethical Frameworks, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

This article discusses the three prominent business ethics theories of Utilitarianism, Deontology and Virtue Ethics. This is a short primer on these theories.

Book Review: The Problematics Of Moral And Legal Theory, Matthew D. Adler

Faculty Scholarship

Reviewing, Richard A. Posner, The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory (1999)

Capital Punishment: A Critique Of The Political And Philosophical Thought Supporting The Justices' Positions., Samuel J.M. Donnelly

St. Mary's Law Journal

Since Gregg v. Georgia, the Supreme Court has developed what could be described as a subparadigm for capital punishment. This subparadigm is now at a point of crisis for two enduring and mutually supporting reasons. The dissents by Justice Brennan and Justice Marshall represent the convergence of the better modern thought in regard to capital punishment. Even with the retirement of both Justices, the criticism found in their dissenting opinions presents a continuing challenge to the plurality’s position. Those using the plurality’s rhetoric are now split into two groups. Justices Blackmun and Stevens regularly vote against capital punishment, while focusing …

Promise, Benefit, And Need: Ties That Bind Us To The Law, Kent Greenawalt

Faculty Scholarship

In this lecture, I address the fundamental question of whether we have a good moral reason for obeying the law. Understanding why we should obey the law, if we should, is the starting point for resolving conflicts between that duty and other claims upon us.

I am primarily concerned here with generally applicable laws of the state, but I also consider rules that apply to members of more limited associations, such as law schools and the bar. Concern over obligation to obey rules does not begin and end with rules of the state. Moreover, the relation of citizens to the …