Close Menu

    Subscribe to Updates

    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Shnoop
    Subscribe
    • HOME
    • FINANCIAL AID
    • SCHOLARSHIPS
    • STUDENT LIFE
    • CAREER
    • CAMPUS
    • HOUSING
    • TIPS
    Shnoop
    You are at:Home»Scholarships»Shilun Zhou on Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted (International Journal of Evidence and Proof)
    Scholarships

    Shilun Zhou on Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted (International Journal of Evidence and Proof)

    Share

    “Whether chatbot-generated opinion can be trusted: Application of the hearsay rule of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and inspiration for China’s evidence law reform“
    Shilun Zhou (PhD Candidate)
    International Journal of Evidence and Proof
    Published online: December 2025

    Abstract: As part of its criminal justice reform, the UK Ministry of Justice issued a policy paper on the use of software-generated evidence in criminal proceedings. In response, this article consistently uses the term “chatbot-generated opinion,” while employing “chatbot testimony” metaphorically to compare chatbot responses in court to human testimony given in answer to a judge’s questions. The article explores whether chatbot-generated opinion evidence can be trusted, focusing on the hearsay rule under the UK Criminal Justice Act 2003 and its implications for reforming China’s evidence law. Contrary to prevailing views that exclude such evidence due to the lack of cross-examination, the article argues that chatbot opinions should not be directly accepted as testimony. It further explains that virtue jurisprudence offers an appropriate framework for identifying indicators of justified belief. Since a chatbot is incapable of having a moral motivation, this prevents judges from justifiably believing a chatbot’s statement qua testimony. Introducing such an evidence analysis approach in China is significant. China’s Confucian ethics and virtue jurisprudence highlight moral responsibility and motivation, providing a valuable foundation for the ongoing reform of China’s evidence law and overcoming the limitations of its predominant objectivist approach to proof.

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Previous ArticleTAA Shares Results of Survey Seeking Authors’ Experiences Filing Claims in Bartz v. Anthropic Settlement » Abstract
    Next Article What Makes an MBA in Logistics and Supply Chain a Game-Changer?
    shnoop_ing3f1
    • Website

    Add A Comment

    Comments are closed.

    Recent Posts
    • Orange County Places New Regulations on ICE
    • Pretending Things Don’t Hurt
    • Situationship or Humiliationship? When It Goes Too Far
    • Spring Cleaning Your Dorm Has Major Mental Health Benefits — Here’s Where To Start
    • A Love Letter to Dublin
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Instagram
    • YouTube
    • TikTok
    • WhatsApp

    Orange County Places New Regulations on ICE

    Pretending Things Don’t Hurt

    Situationship or Humiliationship? When It Goes Too Far

    A spent statute? (Medical Law Review)

    Scholarships of the Week (February 23 – March 1, 2026)

    Gary Meggitt on Insurance Brokers and AI (New Book Chapter)

    © 2026 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.
    • Privacy Policy
    • Disclaimer
    • Terms & Conditions
    • About us
    • Contact us

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.