Many parts of our lives are altering due to the rise of AI. The Court is not immune to this trend. However, the usage of AI today and soon be confined to specific jobs, but the work of a judge necessitates a diverse set of talents.

Objectives

The explicit goal of AI technology in judicial decision-making is to address the issue of fewer cases before the courts. Courts worldwide are dealing with a "litigation explosion" and increased cases. As a result, courts have had to adapt the old method of case management and trial, as well as include AI technology, to aid the judge in hearing the case and resolving the disagreement in a timely and correct manner. AI has clear benefits over human judges, according to the current application and development prospects of AI in the judicial sphere.

Limitations

In the current state of affairs, the practical use of judicial AI is reasonably limited in scope and depth. In practice, judicial AI can only aid the judge's decision-making and cannot replace the judge. Therefore, it may be more appropriate for dealing with technical and auxiliary tasks to increase work efficiency. In scope, judicial AI has been reasonably effective in using mature general technologies (such as face recognition and voice conversion) and in domains with low technological needs, adequate investment, and successfully overcoming problems. However, judicial AI still has specific issues, such as a need for more application, concreteness, and practical effect (Zuo 2018). 

In short, while judicial AI reform is a general trend, it does not imply that present research and implementation are scientific and practical. Judicial AI still needs to improve its knowledge structure, application scenario, and prospective capabilities, limiting it to being a judge's assistant rather than a substitute. Analyzing and comprehending the limitations of AI technology's application in judicial judgement is a vital precondition for realizing its standard application.

Advantages

AI can help court case handling or autonomous decision-making processes by removing information asymmetry across departments, increasing case-handling efficiency, lowering wrong cases, and promoting fairness, among other things. AI is crucial to the trial sector, but it only assists the judge in handling the case. The amount to which court decisions may be determined statistically, analyzed, calculated, and controlled by norms and standards, will be the extent to which We can implement AI. However, judicial judgement is not one-dimensional thinking but a multidimensional action open to universal practice and moral, ethical, and practical considerations.

Conclusion

Judicial systems worldwide are employing AI to analyze enormous volumes of legal data to help lawyers find case law precedents, streamline judicial processes, and help judges anticipate sentence duration and recidivism scores. But, in the face of complicated judicial operations, the computer can still not replace the human referee, at least for the time being.