Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
Yes.
|
Prove this affirmative statement. You may have faith that your opinion is true but you have yet to offer an objective, extrinsically verifiable methodology demonstrating that all human statutes, regulations, contractual agreements and precedential based common law can be converted to formulas applicable to any and all factual situations that may arise. Lacking such proof, all you have is faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
It wasn't a part of my original point, feel free to try to continue to force it though.
|
Your original point was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.
|
Followed shortly thereafter by:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
Emotion has no place in law.
|
After that, you stated your intent was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
I am trying to create an infallible system.
|
Thus, as to your original point, a “safer world” is achievable through the “infallible [judicial] system” that lacks bias and emotion. Obviously, to be infallible, the achievable computerized judicial system would necessarily render a correct result in every matter subject to that system.
To render correct results in the determination of crimes & penalties (criminal law), settlement of disputed agreements between parties (contract law), and the determination of whether a party has wronged another party (tort law), the infallible judicial system must have the ability to incorporate the concept of justice into its analysis of the specific facts (including the parties’ states of mind at various point of the relevant timeline), common law, statutes, contracts and/or regulations at issue. Failure to incorporate the necessary element of justice into such a judicial system,
ipso facto renders the system inherently fallible.
As Lotus has demonstrated, justice, by definition, includes an ethical component
i.e. an ability to factor into any final determination the concept of "just results". As articulated by Monksdown, ethics contains a variable not achievable by computers until the singularity has occurred. If you concede this, then you must also concede the falsity of your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing”.
If you dispute Monksdown statement, the burden is upon you to prove that “ethics
can be defined by a constant”. Otherwise, your belief that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing” is merely an unprovable article of faith you hold dear and that is unsupported by any extrinsic, verifiable proof.
A consideration of ethics is essential to your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system”. The pages of twists, turns and digressions in this matter are the direct result of your inability to admit the inherent logical error of this original statement and, alternatively, your failure to offer objective, extrinsically verifiable prove of its truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
Yes, but you can probably stare at your belly button and be enthralled judging by your posts.
|
While my belly button
is enthralling, what I find so
deeply humorous is the smugness and intensity with which you – oh most vicious critic of those who have faith in the uprovable - defend an unprovable assertion in which you appear to have a deep and abiding faith. Truly, you are worthy of the most vicious mocking.
Preach on brother, your faith will see you through!