The limitless world of our legal system
Time travel is not yet possible
Time travelling is not yet possible, but if you were able to go back 150 years many elements of our judicial system would be familiar to us. For example, we would recognize an organized police force, courtrooms, prosecution and defence lawyers, juries and prisons. (A probation service did not arrive until the early 1900's). Given that the world in 1872 was very different to the one now, it is a remarkable achievement that the judicial system continues with largely the same elements for so long.
In 'Unlocking virtual dimensions' my colleagues in the Atos Scientific Community describe a near future in which our world is profoundly altered, and I wonder whether our current judicial system will remain unchanged for the next 50 years, let alone the next 150. The report describes a time when our physical world blends into a virtual world so perfectly that the boundaries between what is real and what is artificial are seamless. The advent of quantum computing, the development of AI and the maturing of block-chain based services means we will be able to not only replicate almost any physical process, but enhance them in ways that are not physically constrained. We will live part of our time in the physical world, interacting with people or objects that do not really exist (think 'Alexa' and 'Chatbots') and part of our time in a total virtual world (think Zuckerberg's 'Metaverse'). We will invest our time, money and emotions in possessions and avatars that only exist in a virtual world and will be angry, feel threatened, or aggrieved when they are taken away from us. And they will be. Laws will be broken and the challenges for the judicial system will be interesting.
The world does not exist
Virtual worlds, by definition, do not exist within any physical boundary, so the first question could be 'who's laws have been broken'? Canada has recently taken the interesting step in extending Canadian law to the moon - but only for Canadian citizens. There have also been numerous examples where jurisdictions have tried people for crimes committed outside their geographic state, but generally there has been a connection between one of the parties and the judicial system trying their case - and all parties operated in the real world. In 2011 Kenneth Clarke, then UK Justice Secretary, declared he wanted London to be the 'lawyer of the world' - perhaps this is an opportunity for the English judicial system to become 'lawyers to virtual worlds'?
The defendant does not exist
We are familiar with seeing the defendant standing in a dock, or at least seated in court, but what if the defendant does not exist? Immersive virtual reality, supercharged by AI, will be more than capable of creating characters both human-like and robotic that in turn could 'autonomously' commit a crime. Moreover, the robots need not be created by one individual or corporation, but through a collective effort by enthusiasts - many of whom will be anonymous. Asking the defendant how they plead may be problematic.
The punishment will not fit the crime.
Some crimes, such as actual bodily harm, will not be possible in a virtual world whereas others - such as 'stalking' most definitely will. Doubtless there will be new crimes - maybe 'willfully deleting an Avatar' - and the law makers will be kept busy legislating for this new world. (For an interesting early debate on this see ‘Law in Virtual Worlds By Rónán Kennedy). For the judicial system its challenge is, as it always has been, to ensure the punishment fits the crime. Traditionally as a punishment and to protect the public, we have deprived people of their liberty, but what if the offender's crimes have been solely committed in the virtual world and they have been a paragon of virtue in the real world? Depriving them of their physical liberty seems out of step, but we do not yet have the equivalent of a virtual prison.
It's nearly here!
The 'unlocking virtual dimensions' report describes a future hovering between utopia and dystopia. Some of this future is good and exciting, some of it concerning and bad. However, the most surprising aspect of the report is it is forecasting a world that will start to be with us in 2026. That's only four years away! It may take a little longer before we stop 'going to court', where evidence is not shown because it never existed, and where juries are selected because of the virtual worlds they live in. It will be interesting to see which elements of our judicial system will survive and what we will still recognize in 50 years.
Note: This blog was first published on LinkedIn in June ’22 and has been updated for techUK’s #DigitalJusticeWeek2022.Authors
