Technological-Prospective Legal Perspectives in Ecuador Based on the Analysis of the Presumption of Innocence in the Application of the Abbreviated procedure.
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The predominance of the presumption of innocence through the application of procedural and administrative mechanisms is guaranteed by the State. Being the expedited abbreviated procedure as a simplified-alternative procedure to avoid the stages of the ordinary trial, the quick solution to criminal conflicts is what applies. Thus, the efficiency and effectiveness of this procedure will depend on technology in the modern era. And for the sake of efficiency, such technology can contribute to correcting anomalies in terms of time and effectiveness, decongesting the judiciary, optimizing procedural principles, and guaranteeing the right not to incriminate oneself, among others enshrined in the Ecuadorian Constitution and in the COIP as the right to due process. Technologies such as Artificial Intelligence can help because it is already a reality, which represents a paradigm shift in epistemic terms. Legal science is currently confronted with big data, natural language, argument mining, the codification of criminal laws, legal artificial intelligence, the use of algorithms, technological "legal reasoning"; to legal codes, to notions of legal relevance, to the Boolean search for "key terms" and the use of active machine learning algorithms, but also to 'intelligently spaced training systems' that allow greater interaction between the professional and the machine. The speed of legal decision-making processes is inexorable, which does not necessarily collide with the principles of the jurist who aspires to the perfection of the norm and the implementation of justice.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
1. Derechos de autor
Las obras que se publican en 593 Digital Publisher CEIT están sujetas a los siguientes términos:
1.1. 593 Digital Publisher CEIT, conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia Licencia Creative Commons 4.0 de Reconocimiento-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0, por lo cual se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que:
1.1.a. Se cite la autoría y fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial, URL).
1.1.b. No se usen para fines comerciales u onerosos.
1.1.c. Se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso.
Diana Carolina Romero-Paladinez , Pontifica Universidad Católica de Ecuador - Ecuador
Lawyer, Magister in Human Rights, Student of the Master's Degree in Criminal Law at the Catholic University of Ecuador, Manabi Campus. Participation as a Speaker in the International Diploma in Criminal and Criminological Sciences. I
'm currently a public official of the State Attorney General's Office attached to the National Investigation Unit against Organized Crime No. 2 (UNIDOT).
References
Benavides, C. F. A. P. (2022). Conflicto entre la teoría del delito y la sentencia condenatoria en el procedimiento abreviado en Ecuador. Disponible en: https://rus.ucf.edu.cu/index.php/
Barrio Andrés, M. (Ed.) (2019a). Derecho de los Robots. Wolters Kluwer.
Barrio Andrés, M. (Ed.) (2019b). Legal Tech. La transformación digital de la abogacía. Wolters. Brynjolfsson, E. & Mitchell, T. (2017). What can machine learning do? Workforce implications.
Science, 358 (6370), 1530-1534.
Congreso de la República de Ecuador (2010, 29 de marzo). Código de Procedimiento Penal. Quito: Lexis. Publicada en Registro Oficial Suplemento 544 de 9 de Marzo del 2009.
Congreso de la República de Ecuador (2021). Código Orgánico Integral Penal (COIP). Quito: Lexis. 1ra. Edición: 2014. Quito – Ecuador. Disponible en: www.justicia.gob.ec
Congreso de la República de Ecuador (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Quito: Lexis. Registro Oficial No. 449, 20 de octubre 2008. Normativa: Vigente.
Cormack, G. V. & Grossman, M. R. (2015). Multi-faceted Recall of Continuous Active Learning for Technology-Assisted Review. In SIGIR’15. Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research & Development in information retrieval (pp. 763- 766). Santiago de Chile (https://doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767771).
Hildebrandt, M. (2018). Algorithmic Regulation and the Rule of Law. Philosophical Transactions Royal Society A, 376: 20170355. Disponible en: (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsta.2017.0355).
Kurtzweil, R. (1994). La era de las máquinas inteligentes. CONACYT-Equipo Sirius Mexicana. Lessig, L. (2001). El código y otras leyes del ciberespacio. Taurus.
Losey, R. (2015). Predictive Coding 3.0. Law and Technology, October 11th (https://e- discoveryteam.com/2015/10/11/predictive-coding-3-0/).
Losey, R. (2016). Using Hybrid-Multimodal Methods - Predictive Coding 4.0 and Intelligently Space Training (https://ralphlosey.files.wordpress.com/2016/11/predictive_coding).
Mochales, R. & Moens, M. F. (2011). Argumentation Mining. Artificial Intelligence and Law.
Segarra, D.E. (2019). Límites del procedimiento abreviado como garantía del derecho
humano a la presunción de inocencia a partir de la vigencia del Código Orgánico Integral Penal en el Ecuador. Caso Mejía. Repositorio Institucional UASB Digital.
Solar C., José Ignacio (2020). Constituent power. La inteligencia artificial jurídica: nuevas herramientas y perspectivas metodológicas para el jurista. https://doi.org/10.4000/revus.
Yarconi, T. & Westfall, J. (2017). Choosing Prediction Over Explanation in Psychology: Lessons from Machine Learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100-1122.