The use of ChatGPT in student work at Law Faculties

The teachers at my Law Faculty are having a discussion on how we should deal with the scenario that students use services such as ChatGPT to answer home exams, essays and thesis work. This is what I wrote to my colleagues today (translated from Swedish to English via Google Translate for my convenience).

I tried entering one of my research questions from my PhD thesis into ChatGPT.

I tested two variations on the same question. 

I found that the answer to the first variant of the question lacks references, the conceptual apparatus is correct but the content is completely wrong, repetitive and in essence BS. See text below where ChatGPT tries to answer my question regarding evaluation of evidence at ICC. It mainly resonates around rules on admissibility evidence when my question concerns the evaluation of evidence, which means that when it finally purports to talk about the evaluation of evidence, it reproduces an order reminiscent of legal evidence theory (which was used in the Middle Ages). As teachers, we must be able to immediately identify and sanction such practices. 

The answer to the second variant of the question also lacks source references (obviously) but has fewer errors, it no longer argues about admissibility of evidence, is nevertheless superficial. Still gives a better picture of what this legal issue concerns. So you have to ask the question in the right way. 

In the short term (ie from Spring 2023) we need to require references and citations in all submissions, including home exams. This defeats ChatGPT in the short term. 

If we think further ahead. 

I can imagine that this type of service will relatively soon be able to learn to handle and insert citations in the near future. Then we can't have home exams at all.

The services will probably also learn to find my PhD thesis and relevant work by colleagues. At that point services like ChatGPT can provide reasoning that is of the same or better quality than what some students perform today and get passed in their degree essays. How should we deal with it? It is not a given that universities will be able to develop instruments that can detect the use of AI, we teachers will not be able to do so with sufficiently high reliability either. An alternative is that we instead welcome this development. We should encourage the students to use services such as ChatGPT, in their method sections they must explain which question they entered into services such as ChatGPT, how they then processed and developed the material, what analysis they did, etc. They can attach the text proposal that ChatGPT produced, so we as a teachers can compare and evaluate what the students themselves contributed, not least through which question they asked. This is probably how the work for lawyers will look like in the future and we have to relate to it. 

Version 1

Question in ChatGPT

Explain how the International Criminal Court (the ICC) evaluates evidence with a doctrinal approach (3000 words)

Answer

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an independent international organization that investigates and prosecutes individuals for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In evaluating evidence, the ICC follows a number of legal principles and procedures that are designed to ensure that the evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and admissible.

One key principle that the ICC follows in evaluating evidence is the principle of admissibility. This principle requires that evidence be relevant to the case, meaning that it tends to prove or disprove an issue in the case, and that it be reliable, meaning that it is credible and trustworthy. In order to determine whether evidence is admissible, the ICC may consider a number of factors, including the nature of the evidence, the credibility of the witness or source of the evidence, and the relevance of the evidence to the case.

Another principle that the ICC follows in evaluating evidence is the principle of impartiality. This principle requires that the ICC be unbiased and impartial in its consideration of evidence, and that it not be influenced by any outside factors. In order to ensure impartiality, the ICC has established a number of procedures to safeguard against outside influence, including the use of independent experts and the exclusion of evidence that may be biased or unreliable.

The ICC also follows the principle of due process, which requires that individuals accused of crimes be given a fair and impartial trial. This includes the right to be informed of the charges against them, the right to present a defense, and the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. In order to ensure due process, the ICC has established a number of procedures and safeguards, including the appointment of independent counsel and the use of interpreters to ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case.

In addition to these general principles, the ICC has also established a number of specific rules and procedures for evaluating evidence. These rules and procedures are set forth in the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC, as well as in the ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

For example, the Rome Statute requires that the ICC only admit evidence that is "relevant to the determination of the truth" and that "it is reasonably believed to be reliable." The Statute also requires that the ICC consider the probative value of the evidence, meaning the extent to which it tends to prove or disprove an issue in the case, as well as the danger of unfair prejudice, meaning the extent to which the evidence may unfairly influence the outcome of the case.

In addition, the ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence set forth a number of specific rules for the admission of evidence in court. These rules include provisions on the types of evidence that may be admitted, such as oral testimony, documents, and physical evidence, as well as rules on the admissibility of hearsay evidence, meaning evidence that is based on the statements of others rather than firsthand knowledge.

In evaluating evidence, the ICC may also rely on the testimony of experts, who are individuals with specialized knowledge or experience in a particular field. Experts may be called to testify on a variety of issues, including technical matters, scientific evidence, or historical or cultural context. The ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence set forth rules on the qualifications and appointment of experts, as well as the scope and limitations of their testimony.

The ICC may also rely on the testimony of victims and witnesses in evaluating evidence. The Rome Statute requires that the ICC take into account the rights of victims and witnesses, and the ICC's Rules of Procedure and Evidence contain provisions on the protection of victims and witnesses, including measures to safeguard their privacy and security.

Version 2

Question in ChatGPT

Explain how the International Criminal Court (the ICC) evaluates evidence when it determines the guilt of a defendant. (3000 words)

Answer

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a permanent international tribunal established to prosecute individuals for the most serious international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. The ICC evaluates evidence in order to determine the guilt of a defendant in the same way that other criminal courts do.

The process of evaluating evidence at the ICC begins with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) collecting and analyzing evidence to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that a crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC has been committed and that the defendant is responsible for that crime. If the OTP determines that there is sufficient evidence, it will initiate an investigation and file a request with the Pre-Trial Chamber for authorization to open a case.

Once a case has been opened, the OTP will continue to collect and analyze evidence in order to build a case against the defendant. This may include gathering witness statements, collecting physical evidence, and obtaining documents and other records. The OTP will also review any evidence that the defense may have in order to ensure that all relevant evidence is taken into consideration.

Once the OTP has gathered and analyzed all of the available evidence, it will present its case to the Pre-Trial Chamber. The Pre-Trial Chamber will then review the evidence and determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish probable cause to believe that the defendant is responsible for the crimes charged. If the Pre-Trial Chamber determines that there is sufficient evidence, it will confirm the charges and the case will proceed to trial.

During the trial, the OTP will present its case against the defendant, including all of the evidence that it has gathered and analyzed. The defense will have the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, present its own evidence, and challenge the OTP's case. The judges will review all of the evidence presented by both sides and will make a determination based on the evidence as to whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the crimes charged.

In order to determine the guilt of a defendant, the ICC applies the principles of criminal law that are set out in the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. These principles include the requirement that the prosecution prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution must present evidence that is so strong that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty.

In evaluating the evidence presented at trial, the judges will consider the credibility and reliability of the evidence, as well as its probative value. Credibility refers to the believability of the witness or the reliability of the evidence. Probative value refers to the relevance and importance of the evidence in proving the case against the defendant.

The ICC also follows the principle of "in dubio pro reo," which means that in cases of doubt, the benefit should be given to the accused. This means that if there is any doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, the judges must find the defendant not guilty.

In addition to considering the evidence presented at trial, the judges may also consider other factors in determining the guilt of a defendant, such as the defendant's motive and any patterns of behavior that may be relevant to the case.

Once the trial is completed and all of the evidence has been presented, the judges will make a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. If the defendant is found guilty, the judges will then determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the gravity of the crimes and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

In summary, the ICC evaluates evidence in order to determine the guilt of a defendant by collecting and analyzing all relevant evidence, applying the principles of criminal law set out in the [Rome Statute?]