Trayvon Martin Case

Computers would allow a totally unbiased legal system.


Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer. It cannot determine, on its own, such human responses as distress, nervousness, or other human responses that would determine if someone is lying or not. It just has pre-formatted outcomes based on what the programmer has placed in an array somewhere within the program. That does not necessarily prove an unbiased approach to the legal system, but does completely ignore other aspects that are considered when someone is on trial, like psychological and psychosocial issues. And those issues, are often, the bases of innocence and guilt.

More so, the programmer would have to gather his outcomes, based on prior trial activity; activity in which its outcomes were based on human determination. So the long and short of it is, you would build a legal program based on data collected by the human response and the human ability of being unbiased, since that is the only data you could gather from.

JoeRedskin and CRR:

You've yet to explain why emotion needs to be a part of law and justice, you just assert that it should be.

We'll leave it there. If you can't present an argument then we have no discussion, just a disagreement.

To be fair, you have yet to demonstrate a computer system in existence which could handle the range of human ethos and reach valid conclusions.

Let's take a red light camera, as this is a very simple go-no go situation.

This is an actual example, not sure emotions specifically come into play but for a computer justice system to work, one would think infallibility would be a critical piece, else it goes to a human arbitrator, and we are back where we started:

DC uses red light cameras. Driver is driving straight, and is stopped at a red light. He realizes he is in a turn only lane so he changes back to the straight lane which has a green light, and goes forward. A ticket comes later, which clearly identifies him as switching and proceeding in a legal manner. So he appeals. The judge overturns the ticket.

Now, in a computerized system you have to explain to me,
A) will a human look at the camera picture and validate the claim that the driver executed a legal maneuver?
- or -
B)will the computer system take the redlight system's data as correct and invalidate the appeal?

if A is your answer, than humans and human bias are still involved, because, maybe the line isn't as clear cut, so ultimately you have a data entry clerk determining whose appeal is valid, and whose isn't.

If B is your answer, than ultimately you will see some atrocities simply because bad data in equals bad result sets.

Now if you are saying in a hypothetical computer system that hasn't been built or conceived yet, but that could render decisions without human input, yet still make those fine detail differences between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, and deliver exact results, then i would say, build it, test it on a small dataset, while having normal jurisprudence continue, and see where the difference lies.

Skinsguy also makes an excellent point about intuitive responses to if someone is lying. Would the computer system use lie detector results? Again it's answer is only as good as the input given. It can neither think, nor "feel", it's way to a truth. And someone would be inputting what it should think of as it's truth, or valid data set and rules.

In this specific case, how would you imagine about the occurrence is fed into the computer system. Simplistically: Did Defendant 1 shoot Victim 1? yes. Computer says guilty. Then you would have to enter in extenuating circumstances. Who decides which circumstances qualify? All the laws would have to be programmed in to make sure that every exception or possible exclusion is covered, and at some point someone, either machine or human will have to make value decisions about whether an exclusion should or should not be accounted for.

Let's take another case. The OJ murder case. The computer is given as fact a glove was used in the murder. The question is proposed - does the glove fit, for the computer it's a yes no answer. No it did not. Computer finds not guilty. heck Defense Attorneys would now have a field day, as any simple fact that goes outside established parameters would have to yield not guilty rulings. Forget that humans may lie, or tell half truths and someone has to sort through that using emotional and gut feelings.

Finally
Just to bring TV back in because I know you RR get that:
Spock would make a great prosecutor, but I wouldn't want him judging me if I happened to circumvent a rule or two to pass a rigged test.

Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer.

So how does that make my statement 'not true'? It just takes unbiased programming.

It cannot determine, on its own, such human responses as distress, nervousness, or other human responses that would determine if someone is lying or not.

A computer has a far better sense of human feedback than a human does and would be impervious to human flaws. It would also be completely impartial, in fact.

It just has pre-formatted outcomes based on what the programmer has placed in an array somewhere within the program. That does not necessarily prove an unbiased approach to the legal system, but does completely ignore other aspects that are considered when someone is on trial, like psychological and psychosocial issues. And those issues, are often, the bases of innocence and guilt.

Or exploited by some weasel defense attorney.

More so, the programmer would have to gather his outcomes, based on prior trial activity; activity in which its outcomes were based on human determination.

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

So the long and short of it is, you would build a legal program based on data collected by the human response and the human ability of being unbiased, since that is the only data you could gather from.

Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.

As an example of why I don't like the jury system, we have a group here (on WP) that share a common interest yet how often do we see that interest debated with polarizing views?

As previously stated, most people are too stupid to be on a jury.

A computer would never work because the input data required by said computer would be added in by a human. Now, if you are some sort of AI program that could learn on its on and be able to decipher facts and apply it to law, we might be onto something, but let me know when that's available. Until then, we get what we get.

To be fair, you have yet to demonstrate a computer system in existence which could handle the range of human ethos and reach valid conclusions.

Google 'Affectiva', 'iBrain' and dig around on www.eff.org (http://www.eff.org). If you really think I need to demonstrate a computer system etc then you're way behind the curve. A lot of people are.

Let's take a red light camera, as this is a very simple go-no go situation.

Let's not, that's a horribly unsophisticated tool. Even CA is getting rid of them.

DC uses red light cameras. Driver is driving straight, and is stopped at a red light. He realizes he is in a turn only lane so he changes back to the straight lane which has a green light, and goes forward.

That's an illegal use of the road. If you're in a 'turn only' lane that's what you should do.

A ticket comes later, which clearly identifies him as switching and proceeding in a legal manner. So he appeals. The judge overturns the ticket.

How would a still shot show that? I call BS.

Now, in a computerized system you have to explain to me,
A) will a human look at the camera picture and validate the claim that the driver executed a legal maneuver?
- or -
B)will the computer system take the redlight system's data as correct and invalidate the appeal?

Neither, we won't be wasting time with red light cameras. Your straw man has just been incinerated.

Now if you are saying in a hypothetical computer system that hasn't been built or conceived yet, but that could render decisions without human input, yet still make those fine detail differences between truth and falsehood, fact and fiction, and deliver exact results, then i would say, build it, test it on a small dataset, while having normal jurisprudence continue, and see where the difference lies.

They already exist, they are already reading what you do on a daily basis.

Skinsguy also makes an excellent point about intuitive responses to if someone is lying. Would the computer system use lie detector results? Again it's answer is only as good as the input given. It can neither think, nor "feel", it's way to a truth. And someone would be inputting what it should think of as it's truth, or valid data set and rules.

Lie detector tests are great for Maury. Read up on social engineering, see if you feel the same about your ability (or anyone else for that matter) to read a practiced liar. Check out how women work men in bars.

In this specific case, how would you imagine about the occurrence is fed into the computer system. Simplistically: Did Defendant 1 shoot Victim 1? yes. Computer says guilty.

You're aware that there's a little more information than that, right? By you saying 'simplistically' you set the argument so skewed in your favor as to make argument pointless.

Then you would have to enter in extenuating circumstances. Who decides which circumstances qualify? All the laws would have to be programmed in to make sure that every exception or possible exclusion is covered, and at some point someone, either machine or human will have to make value decisions about whether an exclusion should or should not be accounted for.

Correct. It's called programming.

Let's take another case. The OJ murder case. The computer is given as fact a glove was used in the murder. The question is proposed - does the glove fit, for the computer it's a yes no answer. No it did not. Computer finds not guilty.

You're kidding, right? You're aware that the combination of blood on the glove (shrinkage) and the fact that OJ was allowed to wear rubber gloves (bulk) caused the glove to be too tight? That was an awful piece of prosecuting FAIL. Human error cough-cough....

heck Defense Attorneys would now have a field day, as any simple fact that goes outside established parameters would have to yield not guilty rulings. Forget that humans may lie, or tell half truths and someone has to sort through that using emotional and gut feelings.

Emotion? Gut feeling? We have brains for 'thinking'.......

Finally
Just to bring TV back in because I know you RR get that:
Spock would make a great prosecutor, but I wouldn't want him judging me if I happened to circumvent a rule or two to pass a rigged test.

OK, but he was part human, he wouldn't qualify as a juror either.

A computer would never work because the input data required by said computer would be added in by a human. Now, if you are some sort of AI program that could learn on its on and be able to decipher facts and apply it to law, we might be onto something, but let me know when that's available. Until then, we get what we get.

I think you Luddites are basing your impressions of computing power on Grandma's 386.

So how does that make my statement 'not true'? It just takes unbiased programming.

Let me say this again, because I don't think you were able to grasp the concept. The programmer's only source of data to use for such a program would be prior trial outcomes, convictions or what not. Realistically, where else do you think he or she is going to get the data? A programmer is not trained to be a judge, he or she is trained to be a computer programmer; therefore, it does not matter the bias of the programmer. Law is not simply "If variable Outcomes = Array[1], then Boolean variable = True, otherwise false." Simply saying, person A shot and killed person B, therefore person A is guilty. It would be much more complicated than that, and I am afraid that you're on the borderline of thinking in fantasy world rather than realistic logic.



A computer has a far better sense of human feedback than a human does and would be impervious to human flaws. It would also be completely impartial, in fact.

A computer only does what the programmer and or end user tells it to do. This is fact. A computer cannot think for itself. It must follow a list of commands. Please think in terms of real life, not Star Trek.


That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Programmers get paid to program, not to become legal judges.



Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.

No. Over time, the program would continue to use the same criteria that the programmer hard coded into the system. The computer does not suddenly decide that it no longer needs criteria previously built in its arrays and decides it's going to break out on its own. Either the programmer or someone else, would have to decide that the data should be replaced by outcomes saved into new databases, which would still need the use of a human response determining what is accurate data and what is not. A computer cannot determine it, it can only determine data based on the commands it was told to perform. Nothing more and nothing less.

I think you Luddites are basing your impressions of computing power on Grandma's 386.

Not hardly. Can you name me one computerized product that has zero human input?

Not saying it won't be possible, but not with current technology.

Google 'Affectiva', 'iBrain' and dig around on www.eff.org (http://www.eff.org). If you really think I need to demonstrate a computer system etc then you're way behind the curve. A lot of people are.



Let's not, that's a horribly unsophisticated tool. Even CA is getting rid of them.



That's an illegal use of the road. If you're in a 'turn only' lane that's what you should do.



How would a still shot show that? I call BS.

Red light cameras take multiple still shots, the guy was in the lane and changed back to the straight lane legally, hence why the human judge overturned the camera system.

Neither, we won't be wasting time with red light cameras. Your straw man has just been incinerated.

so, you can't validate a red light system, but claim a far more effective system already exists. lovely. let's hold off on the incineration please



They already exist, they are already reading what you do on a daily basis.



Lie detector tests are great for Maury. Read up on social engineering, see if you feel the same about your ability (or anyone else for that matter) to read a practiced liar. Check out how women work men in bars.



You're aware that there's a little more information than that, right? By you saying 'simplistically' you set the argument so skewed in your favor as to make argument pointless.



Correct. It's called programming.



You're kidding, right? You're aware that the combination of blood on the glove (shrinkage) and the fact that OJ was allowed to wear rubber gloves (bulk) caused the glove to be too tight? That was an awful piece of prosecuting FAIL. Human error cough-cough....
Ok, but my point is who will determine if the glove fit? A computer, ok, so it takes the hand scans it, takes the size of the glove, does it account for shrinkage, inside outside felt and lining. Who's to say the killer wasn't wearing rubber gloves. Who makes that argument. The point is there is subjectiveness, and at some point legal cases don't fall to simple yes/no thinking, or even logical thinking.





Emotion? Gut feeling? We have brains for 'thinking'.......



OK, but he was part human, he wouldn't qualify as a juror either.

Um, I believe the brain processes emotions as well as thinking, and also equips us to go with our gut. You can't only use a small sliver of what the brain does, and say good enough.

I just realized RR is actually JR trying to get me to claim lawyers are needed. AAARRRGGGGHHHHH