Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by skinsguy
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.