#CuraumaCase / The Distribution of Cases in the Chilean Judiciary: Algorithm or Urban Myth?
The Distribution of Cases in the Chilean Judiciary: Algorithm or Urban Myth?
In Chile's judiciary, it is presumed that an algorithm exists to distribute cases fairly among the courts. In theory, this system assigns cases randomly and impartially, minimizing human intervention and reducing the risk of favoritism. However, both its actual functionality and its very existence are under scrutiny.
The supposed algorithm's role is to assign judicial cases to judges randomly, adhering to criteria such as specialization, workload, and the availability of judges to ensure fair and competent distribution. Yet in practice, there are indications that this system may not be operating as intended.
The existence of this algorithm has been controversial. Some argue that the system works properly, while others claim it is merely an urban myth used to cover up the discretionary distribution of cases. The lack of transparency and the refusal of the Judicial Branch's Administrative Corporation (CAPJ), the entity that oversees the algorithmic system, to provide the assignment logs has fueled these suspicions.
One of the most emblematic cases that casts doubt on the algorithm's effectiveness is the Curauma Case. In this instance, the case was assigned to the Second Civil Court of Santiago, even though the algorithm's criteria should have selected a different court. This erroneous assignment suggests that the algorithm is not adhering to its own parameters.
The Curauma Case is a clear example of irregularities in case assignments. Despite the established criteria, the case was wrongly assigned, raising concerns about the system's manipulation. The CAPJ has refused to release the logs that could clarify how the case was allocated. This refusal and lack of transparency have led many to question the integrity of the system and suspect potential tampering.
The CAPJ's refusal to provide the logs of the algorithm in the Curauma Case is alarming. If the algorithm truly exists and functions correctly, there should be no reason to withhold this information. However, if the so-called algorithm doesn’t exist, or if it’s merely a manipulable "Excel" spreadsheet flexible to discretionary criteria, it would explain why the court selection contradicted the logic and the criteria of this phantom algorithm.
In Chile's judiciary, it is presumed that an algorithm exists to distribute cases fairly among the courts. In theory, this system assigns cases randomly and impartially, minimizing human intervention and reducing the risk of favoritism. However, both its actual functionality and its very existence are under scrutiny.
The supposed algorithm's role is to assign judicial cases to judges randomly, adhering to criteria such as specialization, workload, and the availability of judges to ensure fair and competent distribution. Yet in practice, there are indications that this system may not be operating as intended.
The existence of this algorithm has been controversial. Some argue that the system works properly, while others claim it is merely an urban myth used to cover up the discretionary distribution of cases. The lack of transparency and the refusal of the Judicial Branch's Administrative Corporation (CAPJ), the entity that oversees the algorithmic system, to provide the assignment logs has fueled these suspicions.
One of the most emblematic cases that casts doubt on the algorithm's effectiveness is the Curauma Case. In this instance, the case was assigned to the Second Civil Court of Santiago, even though the algorithm's criteria should have selected a different court. This erroneous assignment suggests that the algorithm is not adhering to its own parameters.
The Curauma Case is a clear example of irregularities in case assignments. Despite the established criteria, the case was wrongly assigned, raising concerns about the system's manipulation. The CAPJ has refused to release the logs that could clarify how the case was allocated. This refusal and lack of transparency have led many to question the integrity of the system and suspect potential tampering.
The CAPJ's refusal to provide the logs of the algorithm in the Curauma Case is alarming. If the algorithm truly exists and functions correctly, there should be no reason to withhold this information. However, if the so-called algorithm doesn’t exist, or if it’s merely a manipulable "Excel" spreadsheet flexible to discretionary criteria, it would explain why the court selection contradicted the logic and the criteria of this phantom algorithm.
#CuraumaCase #CasoCurauma