References
- Agthe M., Spörrle M., Maner J., Does Being Attractive Always Help? Positive and Negative Effects of Attractiveness on Social Decision Making, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2011, p. 1042
- Ashworth A. and Roberts J.V. (eds) Sentencing guidelines: Exploring the English model, Oxford University Press: Oxford, England 2013
- Bacik I., The Courts: Consistent Sentencing?, Irish Quarterly Review 88, 164, 1999.
- Bates D., Mächler M., Bolker B., Walker S., Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1, 2015, pp. 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
- Bennett H., Broe T., Judicial Neurobiology, Markarian Synthesis and Emotion: How Can the Human Brain Make Sen-tencing Decisions?, Criminal Law Journal, no. 75, 2007, p. 84.
- Chisholm R., Values and Assumptions in Judicial Cases, National Judicial College Conference: Judicial Reasoning - Art or Science?, Canberra, 7-8 February 2009
- Danziger S., Levav J., Avnaim-Pesso L., Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 17, 2011, pp. 6889 - 6892.
- Dasgupta A., Alcohol a double-edged sword: Health benefits with moderate consumption but a health hazard with excess alcohol intake in: Alcohol, Drugs, Genes and the Clinical Laboratory, eds: Amitava Dasgupta, Academic Press, 2017, pp. 1-21.
- Dhami M. K., Sentencing Guidelines in England and Wales: Missed Opportunities?, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76, 289, 2013, 302
- Dhami M. K., Quasirational Models of Sentencing, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 2015, 239-247
- Douglas R., Does the Magistrate Matter? Sentencers and Sentence in the Victorian Magistrates’ Courts, 22, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40, 50, 1989.
- Duff R. A., Guidance and Guidelines, Columbia Law Review, 105, pp. 1162 - 1164, 2005.
- Edwards G. et al, The Effects of Voluntary and Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines, Texas Law Review, 98, 1 (2019)
- Franko Aas K., Sentencing in the Age of Information: From Faust to Macintosh, 2005, pp. 24-26.
- Hao K., Stray J., Can you make AI fairer than a judge? Play our courtroom algorithm game, https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/17/75285/ai-fairer-than-judge-criminal-risk-assessment-algorithm/ (accessed: 4 March 2023).
- Harris C. R., Millman K. J., van der Walt S. J., Gommers R., Virtanen P., Cournapeau D., Oliphant, T. E., Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585, 2020, 357–362.
- Hassemer W., Juristische Methodenlehre und Richterliche Pragmatik, 39 Rechtstheorie 1, 17, 20, 2008.
- Herz C., Striving for Consistency: Why German Sentencing Needs Reform, German Law Journal, 21, 2020, p. 1631.
- Hörnle T., Strafzumessungslehre im Lichte des Grundgesetzes, in: Das strafende Gesetz im sozialen Rechtsstaat, ed. Eva Schumann, De Gruyter, 2010, p. 121.
- Hunter J. D., “Matplotlib: A 2D Graphics Environment”, Computing in Science & Engineering, 9, 3, 2007, pp. 90-95.
- Kaczmarek T., Problemy indywidualizacji wymiaru kary sprawiedliwej i celowej, in: Dyrektywy sądowego wymiaru kary, ed. Majewski J., Warsaw 2014, p. 21.
- Kantner R., Kukkonen C., An introduction to risk of Al for general counsel, 2018 https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/10/1 1/an-introduction-to-the-risks-of-ai-for-general-counse/ (accessed: 1 May 2021);
- Kaspar J., Deutschen Juristentag: sentencing guidelines versus freies tatrichter-liches ermessen–brauchen wir ein neues strafzumessungsrecht?, 2018, p. 50 and p. 107
- Kirby M., Judging: Reflections on the Moment of Decision, Australian Bar Review, 4, 1999, p. 19
- Krasnostein S., Freiberg A., Pursuing Consistency In An Individualistic Sentencing Framework: If You Know Where You’re Going, How Do You Know When You’ve Got There?, Law and Contemporary Problems, 76, 2013, pp. 265-288.
- Larson J., Mattu S., Kirchner L., Angwi J., How We Analyzed the COMPAS Recidivism Algorithm, https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-analyzed-the-compas-recidivism-algorithm (accessed: 4 March 2023).
- Lawrence J. A., Homel J.R., Sentencer and Offender Factors as Sources of Discrimination in Magistrates’ Penalties for Drinking Drivers, Social Justice Research 5, 385, 1992.
- Markiewicz Ł., Markiewicz-Żuchowska A., Skłonności poznawcze sȩdziego wpływające na wysokość wymierzonej kary, Decyzje, 12, 2012, p. 62
- Mason K., Unconscious Judicial Prejudice, Australian Law Journal 2001, pp. 676 - 680
- Meier B.-D., Regionale Justizkulturen in der Strafrechtspraxis: ein Problem für den Rechtsstaat? in: Justizvollzug und Strafrechtsreform im Bundesstaat, eds. Axel Dessecker & Rudolf Egg, Kriminologische Zentralstelle, 2011.
- Niller E., Can AI Be a Fair Judge in Court? Estonia Thinks So, https://www.wired.com/story/can-ai-be-fair-judge-court-estonia-thinks-so/ (accessed: 4 March 2023).
- O’Connell F., Comparative Research Into Sentencing Guidelines Mechanisms, Northern Ireland Assembly, 610, 10, 2011.
- O’Malley T., Living Without Guidelines, in: Sentencing Guidelines: Exploring the English Model, eds. Ashworth A. and Roberts J.V., 2005, Oxford University Press, p. 219, 2005.
- Pina-Sanchez J., Linacre R., Enhancing Consistency in Sentencing: Exploring the Effects of Guidelines in England and Wales, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 4, 2014, pp. 731.
- Quintanilla V., Different Voices: A Gender Difference when Reasoning about the Letter Versus Spirit of the Law, Law and Society Conference, Honolulu, June, 2012.
- Reiling A. D., Courts and Artificial Intelligence, International Journal for Court Administration, 11, 2, 2020, p. 3.
- Roberts J.V. et al, Individualisation at Sentencing: the Effects of Guidelines and ‘Preferred’ Numbers, Criminal Law Review, 2, 123, 2018.
- Roberts J. V., The Evolution of Sentencing Guidelines in Minnesota and England and Wales, Crime and Justice, 48, 2019.
- Streng F., Perspektiven für die Strafzumessung, Strafverteidiger, 38, 593, 2018, p. 594
- Tang Y., Horikoshi M., Li W., “ggfortify: Unified Interface to Visualize Statistical Result of Popular R Packages.”, The R Journal, 8, 2, 2016, pp. 474–485.
- Tierney Cf. J., Do You Suffer from Decision Fatigue? New York Times (online), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/2 1/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?_r-2&pagewanted=1 (accessed: 4 March 2023).
- Tonry M., Sentencing Fragments: Penal Reform in America, 1975-2025, Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 33.
- Van Meter M., One Judge Makes the Case for Judgment, The Atlantic magazine, 2016, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/02/one-judge-makes-the-case-for-judgment/463380/ (accessed: 16 August 2023)
- Venables W.N., Ripley B.D., Modern Applied Statistics with S, Fourth edition, Springer, New York, 2002.
- Verrel T., Brauchen wir ein neues Strafzumessungsrecht?, JuristenZeitung, 73, 811, 2018, p. 813.
- Virtanen R., Gommers R., Oliphant T.E., Haberland M., Reddy T., Cournapeau D., Burovski E., Peterson P., Weckesser W., Bright J., van der Walt S.J., Brett M., Wilson J., Millman K.J., Mayorov N., Nelson A. R. J., Jones E., Kern R., Larson E., Carey C.J., Polat I., Feng Y., Moore E. W., VanderPlas J., Laxalde D., Perktold J., Cimrman R., Henriksen I., Quintero E.A., Harris Ch. R., Archibald A.M., Ribeiro A.H., Pedregosa F., van Mulbregt P., and SciPy 1.0 Contributors, SciPy 1.0: Fundamental Algorithms for Scientific Computing in Python. Nature Methods, 17, 3, 2020, pp. 261-272.
- Waskom, M. L., seaborn: statistical data visualization. Journal of Open Source Software, 6, 60, 2021.
- Whitman J. Q., Equality in Criminal Law: The Two Divergent Western Roads, Journal Legal Analysis, 1, 119, 2009.
- Wickham H., ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2016.
- Wrócbel W., Granice racjonalizacji sądowego wymiaru kary, in: Dyrektywy sądowego wymiaru kary, ed. Majewski J., Warsaw, 2014, p. 45-46.
- case of Kudła v. Poland, app. 30210/96, HUDOC (accessed: 23 August 2023).
- case of Rutkowski and others v. Poland, app. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, HUDOC (accessed: 23 August 2023).
- Cf. COM (2021) 206: Proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the council laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence (artificial intelligence act) and amending certain union legislative acts, European Commission, 2011.
- Data quality and artificial intelligence – mitigating bias and error to protect fundamental rights, FRA, 2019, https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2019/data-quality-and-artificial-intelligence-mitigating-bias-and-error-protect (accessed: 4 March 2023).
- Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA, OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 89–131
- European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and their environment, Council of Europe, Strasburg, 2018.
- Ministry of Justice, Podstawowa informacja o działalności sądów powszechnych - 2016 rok na tle poprzednich okresców statystycznych, 2017, https://isws.ms.gov.pl/pl/baza-statystyczna/publikacje/download,2779,0.html, (accessed: 23 August 2023)
- Postçpowania wszczȩte, nietrzeźwi kierujący w ruchu drogowym wg jednostek organizacyjnych Policji, 2023, https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/https-dane-gov-pl-pl-dataset-3290-dane-o-przestepczosci-w-latach-1999-2022?locale=en (accessed: 23 August 2023).
- Prowadzenie pojazdu w stanie nietrzeźwozści, https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/przestepstwa-ogolem/przestepstwa-drogowe/prowadzenie-pojazdu-w-s/122332,Prowadzenie-pojazdu-w-stanie-nietrzezwosci.html (accessed: 23 August 2023).
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 119, 4 May 2016, p. 1–88
- Sentencing guidelines mechanisms in other jurisdictions, Northern Ireland Assembly, Research and Information Service, 2016.
- U.K. Sentencing Council, Analytical Note: The Resource Effects of Increased Consistency in Sentencing 3.1 (2011).