Vieses implícitos e técnicas de automação decisória: riscos e benefícios

João Paulo Lordelo

Resumo

O presente artigo tem por objetivo analisar os riscos e benefícios do uso de ferramentas de automação decisória, desenvolvidas por meio de algoritmos, em relação aos vieses implícitos derivados de processos heurísticos. Para tanto, serão inicialmente apresentados conceitos fundamentas à compreensão do tema, a exemplo da classificação dos processos heurísticos extraída da economia comportamental. Em seguida, são expostos os resultados de estudos empíricos que revelam a potencialidade dos vieses cognitivos no campo do processo decisório judicial. Ao final, são apresentados os riscos decorrentes do uso de ferramentas de inteligência artificial – cujos algoritmos podem assimilar os vieses humanos – bem como os possíveis benefícios decorrentes do fato de tais ferramentas executarem tarefas de maneira objetiva, afastadas de processos emocionais.

Palavras-chave

Vieses implícitos; Processos heurísticos; Automação decisória

Texto completo:

PDF

Referências

BIWER, Meagan. Implicit Bias in the Judiciary: Confronting the Problem through Normalization, Ind. J. L. & Soc. Equal, v. 7, 2019.

BURCH, Traci. Skin Color and the Criminal Justice System: Beyond Black-White Disparities in Sentencing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, v. 12, p. 395-420, 2015.

CARROLL, John S. The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: an interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, v. 14, n. 1, p. 88-96, 1978.

DANZIGER, Shai; LEVAV, Jonathan; AVNAIM-PESSO, Liora. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. PNAS, v. 108, n. 17, p. 6889-6892, 2011.

DYSON, Freeman. How to Dispel Your Illusions. New York Review of Books, dez/2011. Disponível em: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/dec/22/how-dispel-your-illusions/. Acesso em: 23 ago. 2020.

EBERHARDT, Jennifer L; DAVIES, Paul G.; PURDIE-VAUGHNS, Valerie J.; JOHNSON, Sheri Lynn. Looking Deathworthy: Perceived Stereotypicality of Black Defendants Predicts Capital-Sentencing Outcomes. Psychological Science, v. 17, p. 383-386, 2006.

ENGLICH, Birt; MUSSWEILER, Thomas. Sentencing Under Uncertainty: Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, v. 31, n. 7, p. 1535-1551, 2001;

ENGLICH, Birt; MUSSWEILER, Thomas; STRACK, Fritz. Playing Dice With Criminal Sentences: The Influence of Irrelevant Anchors on Experts’ Judicial Decision Making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, v. 32, p. 188-200, 2006.

FENOLL, Jordi Nieva. Inteligencia artificial y proceso judicial. Marcial Pons: Madrid, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, 2018.

FENOLL, Jordi Nieva. Transfondo psicológico de la independencia judicial. In: FENOLL, Jordi Nieva; OTEIZA, Eduardo (dirs.). La independência judicial: um constante asedio. Marcial Pons: Madri, Barcelona, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, 2019, p. 24.

FERRARI, Isabela; BECKER, Daniel; WOLKART, Erik Navarro. Arbitrium ex machina: panorama, riscos e a necessidade de regulação das decisões informadas por algoritmos. Revista dos Tribunais, v. 995, p. 635-655, set./2018.

FOX, Craig R.; BIRKE, Richard. Forecasting Trial Outcomes: Lawyers Assign Higher Probability to Possibilities That Are Described in Greater Detail. Law and Human Behavior, v. 26, n. 2, p. 159-173, 2002. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11385112_Forecasting_Trial_Outcomes_Lawyers_Assign_Higher_Probability_to_Possibilities_That_Are_Described_in_Greater_Detail. Acesso em 2 set. 2020.

GOFF, Phillip Atiba; JACKSON, Matthew Christian; DI LEONE, Brooke Allison Lewis; CULOTTA, Carmen Marie; DITOMASSO, Natalie Ann. The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 106, n. 4, p. 526-545, 2014. Disponível em: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdf. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2020.

JONES, Craig. The Troubling New Science of Legal Persuasion: Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decision-Making. Advocates Quaterly, v. 41, p. 49-122, 2013.

JONES, Craig; RANKIN, Micah B. E. Justice as a Rounding Error? Evidence of Subconscious Bias in Second-Degree Murder Sentences in Canada. Osgoode Digital Commons, v. 10, n. 81, 2014.

JONES, Craig E. The Troubling New Science of Legal Persuasion: Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decision-Making. Advocates' Quarterly, v. 41, n. 1, 2013.

KAHNEMAN, Daniel. Rápido e Devagar. Tradução: Cássio de Arantes Leite. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2012.

KAHNEMAN, Daniel. TVERSKY, Amos. On the study of statistical intuitions. Cognition, 1982, p. 123.

LARSON, Jeff; MATTU, Surya; LAUREN, Kirchner; ANGWINHOW, Julia. We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm. Disponível em: https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm. Acesso em: 10 ago. 2019.

LIEBERMAN, Joel D.; ARNDT, Jamie. Understanding the Limits of Limiting Instructions: Understanding the limits of limiting instructions: Social Psychological Explanations for the Failures of Instructions to Disregard Pretrial Publicity and Other Inadmissible Evidence. Psychology Public Policy and Law, v. 6, p. 677-711, 2000.

LORD, Charles G.; ROSS, Lee; LEPPER, Mark R. Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, v. 37, n. 11, p. 2098-2109, 1979. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232555483_Biased_Assimilation_and_Attitude_Polarization_The_Effects_of_Prior_Theories_on_Subsequently_Considered_Evidence. Acesso em 2 set. 2020.

NEGOWETTI, Nicole. E. Judicial Decisionmaking, Empathy and the Limits of Perception. Akron Law Review, v. 47, 2014.

NUNES, Dierle; MARQUES, Ana Luiza Pinto Coelho. Inteligência artificial e direito processual: vieses algorítmicos e os riscos de atribuição de função decisória às máquinas. Revista de Processo, v. 285, p. 421-447, nov./2018.

NUNES, Dierle; LUD, Nathanael; PEDRON, Flávio. Desconfiando da imparcialidade dos sujeitos processuais. Salvador: Juspodivm, 2018.

OAKES, Anne Richardson; DAVIES, Haydn. Process, Outcomes and the Invention of Tradition: The Growing Importance of the Appearance of Judicial Neutrality. Santa Clara Law Review, v. 51, n. 2, 2011.

O’NEIL, Cathy. Weapons of math destruction: how big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Nova York: Crown, 2016.

PARKS, Gregory S.; DAVIS, Andre M. Confronting Implicit Bias: An Imperative for Judges in Capital Prosecutions. Human Rights Magazine, v. 42, n. 2, 2016. Disponível em: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/2016-17-vol-42/vol--42--no--2---the-death-penalty--how-far-have-we-come-/confronting-implicit-bias--an-imperative-for-judges-in-capital-p/. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2020.

PEER, Eyal; GAMLIEL, Eyal. Heuristics and Biases in Judicial Decisions. Court Review, v. 49, n. 2, p. 114-119, 2013.

PEIXOTO, Fabiano Hartmann; SILVA, Roberta Zumblick Martins da. Inteligência artificial e Direito. Curitiba: Alteridade, 2019.

PEREIRA, Marcos Emanoel; ÁLVARO, José Luis; OLIVEIRA, Andréia C. Oliveira; DANTAS, Gilcimar. Estereótipos e essencialização de brancos e negros: um estudo comparativo. Psicologia & Sociedade, v. 1, p. 144-153, 2011.

RACHLINSKI, Jeffrey J.; JOHNSON, Sheri; WISTRICH, Andrew J.; GUTHRIE, Chris. Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges? Cornell Law Faculty Publications, 2009. Disponível em: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1691&context=facpub. Acesso em: 30 ago. 2020.

RASSIN, Eric; EERLAND, Anieta; KUIJPERS, Ilse. Let’s Find the Evidence: An Analogue Study of Confirmation Bias in Criminal Investigations. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, v. 7, p. 231-246, 2010. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230268983_Let's_Find_the_Evidence_An_Analogue_Study_of_Confirmation_Bias_in_Criminal_Investigations. Acesso em 2 set. 2020.

ROOTH, Dan-Olof. Implicit Discrimination in Hiring: Real World Evidence. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), 2007. Disponível em: http://ftp.iza.org/dp2764.pdf. Acesso em 30 ago. 2020.

STEIN, Christopher; DOUIN, Michelle. Cognitive Bias in the Courtroom: Combating the Anchoring Effect in Criminal Sentencing. Disponível em: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2991611. Acesso em: 31 ago. 2020.

SUNSTEIN, Cass R. Behavioral Law and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

TVERSY, Amos; KAHNEMAN, Daniel. Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, v. 2, n. 5, p. 207-232, 1973.

TVERSY, Amos; KAHNEMAN, Daniel. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, v. 185, p. 1.124-1.131, 1974.

VITORELLI, Edilson. Processo civil estrutural: teoria e prática. Salvador: Juspodivm, 2020.

WALDFOGEL, Joel; AYERS, Ian. A Market Test for Race Discrimination in Bail Setting. Stanford Law Review, v. 46, p. 987-1048, 1994.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34280/annep/2020.v1i2.44

Apontamentos

  • Não há apontamentos.