Today’s Panopticon: Classical Legal Ethics Should Be Counterbalance to Modern Surveillance Technology

In 2020, facial recognition and surveillance technology falsely identified Robert Williams as a suspected shoplifter. He was arrested at his home and held in a detention center in Detroit––miles away from his suburban home. It took four years after his eventual release before the city of Detroit admitted its mistake and dropped charges against him. Despite its risks, mass surveillance technology has gained sweeping permissibility within the legal system, resulting in numerous false arrests that have changed lives in “the blink of an eye.” Moreover, overreliance on technology in the legal system will have severe consequences for all. Without human oversight, the law will become increasingly disconnected from justice; strict adherence to rules and regulations will be prioritized over essential human values such as moral reason, compassion, and dignity. Without a legal system that thinks and feels, will justice continue to fade?

The police officers that apprehended Robert Williams refused to clarify the reason for his arrest. In silent deference to the algorithm, the officers flashed a paper with the words “felony warrant” and “larceny” emblazoned on an image of Mr. Williams. While the use of technology was technically permissible, the acquiescent behavior of these officers––conferring decisive power to an algorithm that does not share human values––flies in the face of a millennium of legal philosophy. For example, Aristotle and Cicero rejected the tyranny of a single ruler and preferred to align society through a set of common laws. The latter philosopher believed that true law is derived from human nature and reason; a theory of Natural Law later evolved and refined by St. Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica. Aquinas encapsulates Natural Law in a single principle: “good is to be done and pursued and evil avoided.” In theory, the pursuit of the good and virtuous seems like a universal objective; however, the application of moral law is inherently subjective. The concepts of good and evil are continuously debated in cultural, philosophical, and religious forums––and this is for the best. It is the intangibility of these ideas that prevents tyrannical forces from co-opting them for unilateral power. Countless civil rights movements have drawn on the concepts of natural and moral law to challenge systemic injustice and fight for human rights. Likewise, Supreme Court decisions affirming equality and liberty, international laws banning war crimes, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights all demonstrate the transformative power of these ideals.

Certainly, there is an allure to the notion that AI-powered algorithms are morally neutral. If neutrality could be achieved, perhaps technological tools could actually counteract issues of bias in policing or prevent wrongful arrest; but, the truth is that algorithmic decision-making is often steeped in bias and liable to errors. Moreover, misplacing trust in technological machines––especially in the legal domain––will reduce autonomy and create a form of AI “tyranny.” The efficacy of the legal system depends on the moral character of its constituents, and offloading essential functions to a tool that does not share a moral obligation to promote justice is dangerous. 

History shows that rejecting natural and moral law leads to devastating consequences. For example, the Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the removal of Cherokee and other Native American tribes from their ancestral lands. The policy was a direct affront to the natural rights of life, liberty, and property and led to the deaths of 6,000 people from starvation and disease during the “Trail of Tears.” Despite being “legally” approved, the Act was a catastrophic example of the perils of immoral law. Likewise, in Nazi Germany, morality was supplanted by the supreme authority of the government. Obedience––not justice––was rewarded as the highest virtue. Courts, judges, and military officials followed state laws without question, resulting in the Holocaust, which violated every natural and moral law in existence. Shortly thereafter, the Nuremberg Trials rejected the Nazi defense of ‘just following orders’ and maintained that moral principles take precedence over state law. 

The appeal to authority fallacy and the folly of amorality already plague the relationship between AI and the law. Modern jurisprudence must confront this new reality and identify strategies to balance technology with classical legal ethics. Legal professionals should seek to restore the integrity of judicial decision-making, strengthen constitutional protections for civil liberties, and integrate ethics and digital literacy into continuing legal education. In the immediate term, passing legislation prohibiting arrest based solely on evidence from surveillance technologies would mitigate the detrimental effects of false or faulty data. At the same time, training courses could be developed to ensure judges, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers fully understand and value natural rights. For example, an officer with ethical training may have questioned whether relying on facial recognition alone was just and reconsidered a presumptive arrest. Likewise, prosecutors might have demanded more evidence before approving charges, and judges might have scrutinized the reliability of the technology more carefully. In the future, defense counselors should feel empowered to challenge unfair procedures, and legal decisions will once again be guided by the Lockean belief that government exists to protect citizens’ liberty––not merely enforce rules and procedures.

History’s worst injustices have often been committed under protection of law, not in defiance of it. When governments and legal systems prioritize procedure over justice, fundamental human rights tend to be violated. The wrongful arrest of Robert Williams is one recent example of the consequences that arise when Natural Law is denied––and a call to better protect liberty through systemic reforms. Law should be guided not only by what is legal, but also by what is right. 

Mark Nomellini is a junior at Salisbury School with a passion for law and philosophy.