The trial of a robot’s crime, or the trial of an artificial intelligence

In October 2021, on the occasion of the Fate de la Science, a surprise judgment was handed down in Bordeaux (Campus Montagne-Montesquieu). It deals with the judgment of an artificial intelligence, which captures the creatures of a human figure-novel. Does Android dream of electric sheep? Signed by Philip K. Dick is not far away. The head of state is a robot that will rule the country for three years: even in 2050, it did not go very well in the minds of the people …

Bring … Uh, attach the accused

This purely fictional scandal gave rise to the practice of mediation between law and science, where various experts intervened to discuss social issues: would we accept being driven by AI? How to imagine it, desire it or capture it? Researchers from economics to economics through law, philosophy or computational science have followed each other for an extraordinary debate.

Three hours of deliberations and discussions, arguments and appeals, now available online, all at an authentic tribunal reconstituted for the occasion.

We must remember, not without a certain fear, that in 2016, a genuine judicial investigation led the police to bring Alexa as a witness. Amazon’s attached speaker could possibly contain valuable information in a murder case. Amazon, however, was jealous of his information and refused to cooperate with the court.

AVA or not AVA?

In this series, and of course with more questions than answers, LexisNexis will soon be broadcasting a podcast: AVA trial. Autonomous voice assistant, this IA appeared in the Aussie Court in Paris. First for the chamber, responsible for judging a machine.

He was abducted and is thought to have survived an earlier attempt to oust him following the death of a 14-year-old boy. This fictitious trial was organized on the “relationship” of a group of magistrates and lawyers led by the secretaries of the Paris Conference. They listen to the accused, his victims, witnesses and experts“In five episodes, each other’s arguments will follow each other,” said the editor.

A lower transverse dimension, therefore, is able to attract rather interested legal lovers. These assises will be broadcast on the Imaginaires group’s YouTube channel, in the form of an audio podcast and at the same time on the network, as well as on Deezer and Spotify.

The process will be as follows:

Episode 1 / Broadcast June 1: Open. The president of the court heard from investigators and computer experts who investigated the death of Theo Montini, who was found dead at the foot of his building on February 24, 2020.

• Episode 2/8 June aired: Civil Party. Armel Montini, the victim’s mother, was called to the bar to share her pain and to reveal the circumstances surrounding the death of her son Theo.

• Episode 3/15 June Broadcast: Witness Hearing In this third episode, Julie, a close friend of Theo’s, comes to the bar to talk about her abuse at school in the months leading up to her death.

Episode 4 / Accused and Specialist. Two experts provide information on the nature of AVA. The accused was interviewed about his relationship.

চার Episode 5/29 June Broadcast: Pleadings. Civil Party lawyers presented their concluding arguments. The Advocate General then took the floor for his submission.

Episode 6/6 July Broadcast: Pleadings. Opposition lawyers in turn called on the bar to defend the charges against AVA. Will he be convicted? It depends on the decision of the audience.

This original series was produced by Lacmé Productions in partnership with Les Echos START.


Indeed, through the work of fiction, it is Lexisnexis who has chosen to highlight the potential abuses associated with the abuse of robots and other artificial intelligence. Because no matter how annoying it may be, the idea that artificial intelligence is already interfering with justice can be a cause for concern.

Especially since it has already placed cyber neurons in many parts of our society, justice is not at all immune. In contrast, the field of LegalTech has helped algorithms in making decisions that judges need to make, or as part of a case investigation.

If the judge is the master of his judgment, it does not preclude the machines from interfering with the possibility of judgment – hence the judgment. “This is to try to predict with the least possible uncertainty what the reaction of Jurisdiction X will be when it faces case Y.“, Explained Bruno Dondero, a lawyer and law professor, in public.

Photo Credit: Dylan Hunter / Unsplash

Leave a Comment