The Perfect Victim: Computational Analysis of Judicial Attitudes towards Victims of Sexual Violence

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.05302v1
• Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 09:45:44 GMT
• Title: The Perfect Victim: Computational Analysis of Judicial Attitudes towards Victims of Sexual Violence
• Abstract summary: We develop models to analyze court statements in order to assess judicial attitudes toward victims of sexual violence in the Israeli court system. The study examines the resonance of "rape myths" in the criminal justice system's response to sex crimes, in particular in judicial assessment of victim's credibility.
• Score: 9.967491636072246
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We develop computational models to analyze court statements in order to assess judicial attitudes toward victims of sexual violence in the Israeli court system. The study examines the resonance of "rape myths" in the criminal justice system's response to sex crimes, in particular in judicial assessment of victim's credibility. We begin by formulating an ontology for evaluating judicial attitudes toward victim's credibility, with eight ordinal labels and binary categorizations. Second, we curate a manually annotated dataset for judicial assessments of victim's credibility in the Hebrew language, as well as a model that can extract credibility labels from court cases. The dataset consists of 855 verdict decision documents in sexual assault cases from 1990-2021, annotated with the help of legal experts and trained law students. The model uses a combined approach of syntactic and latent structures to find sentences that convey the judge's attitude towards the victim and classify them according to the credibility label set. Our ontology, data, and models will be made available upon request, in the hope they spur future progress in this judicial important task.

Related papers

• A Coin Flip for Safety: LLM Judges Fail to Reliably Measure Adversarial Robustness [57.510025257780306]
  We show that existing validation protocols fail to account for substantial distribution shifts inherent to red-teaming.<n>We propose ReliableBench, a benchmark of behaviors that remain more consistently judgeable, and JudgeStressTest, a dataset designed to expose judge failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T15:13:35Z)
• Platforms as Crime Scene, Judge, and Jury: How Victim-Survivors of Non-Consensual Intimate Imagery Report Abuse Online [5.0714355107124085]
  Non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII) is mediated through online platforms.<n>We present a study of NCII victim-survivors' online reporting experiences.<n>We find that platform reporting processes are opaque, hostile, and ineffective.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-15T16:28:46Z)
• Making Judicial Reasoning Visible: Structured Annotation of Holding, Evidentiary Considerations, and Subsumption in Criminal Judgments [0.0]
  Judicial reasoning in criminal judgments typically consists of three elements: Holding, evidentiary considerations, and subsumption.<n>These elements form the logical foundation of judicial decision-making but remain unstructured in court documents, limiting large-scale empirical analysis.<n>This work lays the foundation for large-scale empirical legal studies and legal sociology, providing new tools to analyze judicial fairness, consistency, and transparency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-15T09:33:07Z)
• AppealCase: A Dataset and Benchmark for Civil Case Appeal Scenarios [47.83822985839837]
  We present the AppealCase dataset, consisting of 10,000 pairs of real-world, matched first-instance and second-instance documents across 91 categories of civil cases.<n>The dataset also includes detailed annotations along five dimensions central to appellate review: judgment reversals, reversal reasons, cited legal provisions, claim-level decisions, and whether there is new information in the second instance.<n> Experimental results reveal that all current models achieve less than 50% F1 scores on the judgment reversal prediction task, highlighting the complexity and challenge of the appeal scenario.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T10:50:33Z)
• Illusions of Relevance: Using Content Injection Attacks to Deceive Retrievers, Rerankers, and LLM Judges [52.96987928118327]
  We find that embedding models for retrieval, rerankers, and large language model (LLM) relevance judges are vulnerable to content injection attacks. We identify two primary threats: (1) inserting unrelated or harmful content within passages that still appear deceptively "relevant", and (2) inserting entire queries or key query terms into passages to boost their perceived relevance. Our study systematically examines the factors that influence an attack's success, such as the placement of injected content and the balance between relevant and non-relevant material.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-30T18:02:15Z)
• DELTA: Pre-train a Discriminative Encoder for Legal Case Retrieval via Structural Word Alignment [55.91429725404988]
  We introduce DELTA, a discriminative model designed for legal case retrieval. We leverage shallow decoders to create information bottlenecks, aiming to enhance the representation ability. Our approach can outperform existing state-of-the-art methods in legal case retrieval.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-27T10:40:14Z)
• Gender Biased Legal Case Retrieval System on Users' Decision Process [14.764378117255609]
  Legal case search has become an important part of a legal practitioner's work. Gender bias in the legal case search results did not have a significant effect on judges' perceptions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T12:54:13Z)
• MUSER: A Multi-View Similar Case Retrieval Dataset [65.36779942237357]
  Similar case retrieval (SCR) is a representative legal AI application that plays a pivotal role in promoting judicial fairness. Existing SCR datasets only focus on the fact description section when judging the similarity between cases. We present M, a similar case retrieval dataset based on multi-view similarity measurement and comprehensive legal element with sentence-level legal element annotations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-24T08:17:11Z)
• Gender Biases in Automatic Evaluation Metrics for Image Captioning [87.15170977240643]
  We conduct a systematic study of gender biases in model-based evaluation metrics for image captioning tasks. We demonstrate the negative consequences of using these biased metrics, including the inability to differentiate between biased and unbiased generations. We present a simple and effective way to mitigate the metric bias without hurting the correlations with human judgments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T04:27:40Z)
• Automated Extraction of Sentencing Decisions from Court Cases in the Hebrew Language [8.00388161728995]
  We address Automated Punishment Extraction (APE) in sentencing decisions from criminal court cases in Hebrew. We curate a dataset of sexual assault sentencing decisions and a manually-annotated evaluation dataset. We find that while supervised models can identify the sentence with good accuracy, rule-based approaches outperform them on the full APE task.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-10-24T08:01:41Z)
• Identifying biases in legal data: An algorithmic fairness perspective [3.8073142980733]
  We study the problem of identifying and measuring biases in large-scale legal case data from an algorithmic fairness perspective. Our approach utilizes two regression models: A baseline that represents the decisions of a "typical" judge as given by the data and a "fair" judge that applies one of three fairness concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-09-21T04:05:12Z)
• Legal Judgment Prediction with Multi-Stage CaseRepresentation Learning in the Real Court Setting [25.53133777558123]
  We introduce a novel dataset from real courtrooms to predict the legal judgment in a reasonably encyclopedic manner. An extensive set of experiments with a large civil trial data set shows that the proposed model can more accurately characterize the interactions among claims, fact and debate for legal judgment prediction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-12T04:27:14Z)
• Investigating sentence severity with judicial open data -- A case study on sentencing high-tech crime in the Dutch criminal justice system [3.35887644871588]
  Due to privacy legislation, judicial open data -- like court judgments -- in Europe is usually anonymised. Because this removes part of the information on for instance offenders, the question arises to what extent criminological research into sentencing can make use of anonymised open data. Over the period 2015-2020, we analysed sentencing in 25,366 court judgments and, in particular, investigated the relationship between sentence severity and the offender's use of advanced ICT. The most important results are, firstly, that offenders who use advanced ICT are sentenced to longer custodial sentences compared to other offenders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-09T17:12:21Z)
• Equality before the Law: Legal Judgment Consistency Analysis for Fairness [55.91612739713396]
  In this paper, we propose an evaluation metric for judgment inconsistency, Legal Inconsistency Coefficient (LInCo) We simulate judges from different groups with legal judgment prediction (LJP) models and measure the judicial inconsistency with the disagreement of the judgment results given by LJP models trained on different groups. We employ LInCo to explore the inconsistency in real cases and come to the following observations: (1) Both regional and gender inconsistency exist in the legal system, but gender inconsistency is much less than regional inconsistency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-25T14:28:00Z)
• The effect of differential victim crime reporting on predictive policing systems [84.86615754515252]
  We show how differential victim crime reporting rates can lead to outcome disparities in common crime hot spot prediction models. Our results suggest that differential crime reporting rates can lead to a displacement of predicted hotspots from high crime but low reporting areas to high or medium crime and high reporting areas.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-01-30T01:57:22Z)
• Fairness Evaluation in Presence of Biased Noisy Labels [84.12514975093826]
  We propose a sensitivity analysis framework for assessing how assumptions on the noise across groups affect the predictive bias properties of the risk assessment model. Our experimental results on two real world criminal justice data sets demonstrate how even small biases in the observed labels may call into question the conclusions of an analysis based on the noisy outcome.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-03-30T20:47:00Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.