[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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. If you really think I need to demonstrate a computer system etc then you're way behind the curve. A lot of people are.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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....

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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'.......

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

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.