Vieses implícitos e riscos na adoção técnicas de automação decisória

  • João Paulo Lordelo Universidade de Coimbra
Palavras-chave: Vieses implícitos, Processos heurísticos, Automação decisória

Resumo

O presente artigo tem por objetivo analisar os riscos 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.

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.
Publicado
2021-11-21