Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

And so I maintain when you find a case where an armed assailant walked free after pursuing and killing an unarmed teen, let me know.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Fair enough.

At the same time - while I look for such a case, I ask why do you believe this case to be of national importance? You say "you wish it wasn't" which presumes you believe it to be so. Again, I ask why - is it just that the shooter initially went free? the underlying racial issues? As I said, injustice occurs everyday - why did the injustice in this case rate such a media furor?

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Your analysis and frustration with the question of "national importance" is grossly misplaced. First, a murder took place. Period. It's definitely newsworthy and it's definitely important. I'm sure we agree there.

The news wasn't that a kid was murdered. That happens everyday. There were unanswered questions that led to more unanswered questions. That's the news. And frankly, to remove the racial underpinnings and coded language of Zimmerman is to ignore a vitally important element that warrants thorough examination. Examination that, in hindsight, seemed to be dismissed with no or very little consideration.

It's important to understand the Sanford community led the effort to raise the issue, not the other way around. It was organic, not contrived or led by a media personality. So the question why it's a national story is really besides the point anyway in my view. I'm more interested in the pursuit of justice and to ensure that we never see this particular crime happen again.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]The law and computers are human creations. Each is created differently to serve different functions. When we create computers that can demonstrate and apply the concepts of justice tempered by mercy and compassion in their manipulation of data, then it may be possible to do as you assert. Try as I might, however, I haven’t found an app for that yet.[/quote]

Have you checked the Apple store? There's more subtle software out there than most people could even guess at.

[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]Emotions are inherent in creation and application of human law and have been since the inception of law within society. Accordingly, as currently written, there is a necessary emotional variable in the equation used to evaluate evidence, pass judgment as to compliance and determine appropriate sentencing under the laws that govern us.[/quote]

Emotion has no place in law.

[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]Further, I accept it as true that a processer of information unable to adequately manipulate all the necessary variables of a system – such as computers attempting to compute and apply “justice” – will be inherently flawed and consistently render unreliable/incorrect results. I would have thought someone as rational as you could see such an obvious systemic flaw.[/quote]

So because you can't comprehend such a system it doesn't exist?

[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]If, however, you consider our corporate humanity to be a flaw that must be removed from the creation and application of our legal system, the only way to do so is to cede the right to govern ourselves ([I]i.e.[/I] the right to create the laws which will apply to us) to mechanical devices that, at their core, simply store, retrieve and manipulate compilable data. Again, you may wish to surrender to the coming computer overlords. I do not.[/quote]

Computers would allow a totally unbiased legal system.




[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]From the simple fact, as highlighted by CRed above that "being human" involves more than weighing odds and manipulating equations.[/quote]

And by 'fact' you actually mean 'opinion'. Don't confuse the two.

[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.[/quote]

They can very easily be made so.

[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]A process incapable of understanding such concepts will inevitably make choices resulting in specific cases of inhumanity – such as giving more weight to the probability of survival then any other factor when choosing between saving the life of an adult over that of a child.[/quote]

And the system we have is so perfect?

[quote=JoeRedskin;919893]I am sure you will be happy with the Borg assimilation.[/quote]

They move too slowly. Matrix, baby!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;919904]Your analysis and frustration with the question of "national importance" is grossly misplaced. First, a murder took place. Period. It's definitely newsworthy and it's definitely important. I'm sure we agree there.

The news wasn't that a kid was murdered. That happens everyday. There were unanswered questions that led to more unanswered questions. That's the news. And frankly, to remove the racial underpinnings and coded language of Zimmerman is to ignore a vitally important element that warrants thorough examination. Examination that, in hindsight, seemed to be dismissed with no or very little consideration.

It's important to understand the Sanford community led the effort to raise the issue, not the other way around. It was organic, not contrived or led by a media personality. So the question why it's a national story is really besides the point anyway in my view. I'm more interested in the pursuit of justice and to ensure that we never see this particular crime happen again.[/quote]

Okay. For what it's worth, I accept that explanation and agree with most of it.

My one contention is that, while I agree that the racial issues underpinning the matter [I]may[/I] be an element to the case and certainly bear full examination, I find that much of the racisim attributed to Zimmerman to be the result of media constructs (the original reports that Zimmerman was white, the creation of the term "white latino", NBC's editing of the tape) created to manipulate opinion. In doing so, and in my opinion, the underlying tragedy and the rule of law got lost in the national furor over racial issues.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;919907]Have you checked the Apple store? There's more subtle software out there than most people could even guess at.[/quote]

Great, find me an ethics app.

As to the rest of your pithy remarks, I am simply not going digress further on these points in this thread. I will happly take them up in another or in a discussion through PM's. I will close by stating that your assertion that "emotion has no place in law" demonstrates a deeply flawed understanding of the manner in which societies govern themselves and is so devoid of humanity as to be piteous.

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;919907]...

Emotion has no place in law.
...[/QUOTE]

This is a completely false and inhuman assertion.

Good law and good governance come from finding the balance point between the emotional and the rational. I agree with Joe that if you fail to see some use for emotional input to legal questions than that is 'piteous'

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;919909]Okay. For what it's worth, I accept that explanation and agree with most of it.

My one contention is that, while I agree that the racial issues underpinning the matter [I]may[/I] be an element to the case and certainly bear full examination, I find that much of the racisim attributed to Zimmerman to be the result of media constructs (the original reports that Zimmerman was white, the creation of the term "white latino", NBC's editing of the tape) created to manipulate opinion. In doing so, and in my opinion, the underlying tragedy and the rule of law got lost in the national furor over racial issues.[/quote]

That's certainly one view point.

But let's be honest here, race is perception in America. The media didn't create that reality and they didn't have to gin it up. We've co-existed with racial tensions for hundreds years and it's always right beneath the surface. Again, to stress a vitally important point, it was the citizens within the Sanford community that felt Trayvon's murder could possibly have been racially motivated. Adding to their collective frustration was the Sanford PD's mishandling of evidence, conflicting police reports, the dismissal of the police chief, George Zimmerman's sudden release, and the confusion around Stand Your Ground. That's a lot for a community, a black community mind you, to digest with not one single answer for a full 30 days.

However you may feel about the media's reporting and coverage, it has largely reflected the festering frustration of the citizens of Sanford, as well as the history of resentment between African-Americans and law enforcement in this country.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;919796]It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.[/quote]Things would certainly be fairer. Eliminate prejudice against minorities and bias against anybody in jury deliberations. Prevent media hype like MSNBC's campaign against Zimmerman early, and John Edward's charisma in his trial, from having an effect on the verdict.

HOW we could implement a change, I don't know. But I'm convinced jury by only our peers is basically flawed. Because people can be very stupid at times.

Our society is built partly on the idea that majority rule can determine the best course of action overall. But in small groups, it seems like the opposite is true. And as far as individuals go, like George Carlin said: Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!

I think judging whether to take a person's freedom away, let alone their life, should be done by people far above average intelligence. I think we'd need an AI a lot "smarter" than say IBM's Watson, to handle a court verdict, but at least we could eliminate some stupidity that way.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;919907]
Computers would allow a totally unbiased legal system.
[/quote]

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;919922]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsguy;919961]Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer.[/quote]

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

[quote=skinsguy;919961]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.[/quote]

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=skinsguy;919961]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. [B]And those issues, are often, the bases of innocence and guilt.[/B] [/quote]

Or exploited by some weasel defense attorney.

[quote=skinsguy;919961]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. [/quote]

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

[quote=skinsguy;919961]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.[/quote]

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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.[/quote]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]Let's take a red light camera, as this is a very simple go-no go situation.[/quote]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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.[/quote]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]A ticket comes later, which clearly identifies him as switching and proceeding in a legal manner. So he appeals. The judge overturns the ticket. [/quote]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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?[/quote]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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.[/quote]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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.[/quote]

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.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985] 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.[/quote]

Correct. It's called programming.

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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. [/quote]

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....

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985] 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.[/quote]

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

[quote=CRedskinsRule;919985]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.[/quote]

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

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=NC_Skins;919994]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.[/quote]

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

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;919992]So how does that make my statement 'not true'? It just takes unbiased programming.[/quote]

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.



[quote=RedskinRat;919992]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]

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.


[quote=RedskinRat;919992]That's why they get paid the big bucks.[/quote]

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



[quote=RedskinRat;919992]Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.[/quote]

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;919999]I think you Luddites are basing your impressions of computing power on Grandma's 386.[/quote]

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;919998]Google 'Affectiva', 'iBrain' and dig around on [URL="http://www.eff.org"]www.eff.org[/URL]. 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.[/quote]

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.

[quote=RedskinRat;919998]Neither, we won't be wasting time with red light cameras. Your straw man has just been incinerated.[/quote]

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



[quote=RedskinRat;919998]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....[/quote]
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.





[quote=RedskinRat;919998]Emotion? Gut feeling? We have brains for 'thinking'.......



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

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.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

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

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;919902]And so I maintain when you find a case where an armed assailant walked free after pursuing and killing an unarmed teen, let me know.[/quote]

You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;920014]You seem to pick and choose your facts. At the time of the attack/killing Zimmerman was by his truck and not pursuing Trayvon as the dispatcher had asked.[/quote]i

Bullshit, I'm not picking and choosing a damn thing. Zimmerman was following Martin his in SUV, de-boarded, and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.

Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=12thMan;920016] and the dispatcher told him to get his dumb ass back in the vehicle. He said, okay. That's what happened.[/quote]

He did? You must have read some transcripts I'm not aware of.


[url=http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/20/911-calls-paint-picture-of-chaos-after-florida-teen-is-shot/]911 calls paint picture of chaos after Florida teen is shot – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs[/url]





[quote=12thMan;920016]Had Zimmerman stayed in his SUV from the jump, this thread wouldn't even exist.[/quote]


Had Martin not walked through a neighborhood that wasn't his own, this thread wouldn't even exist.

Had previous burglaries have not had happened in the neighborhood causing people to be on guard like Zimmerman, this thread wouldn't even exist.


We can play that game all day long on. At the end of the day, Zimmerman was within his right to follow a suspicious person in trying to protect his neighborhood. This doesn't mean he instigated anything, it simply means he's doing what anybody else probably would have after a few burglaries in the neighborhood. Does this give him a right to harass or shoot a person? Not at all. Does this mean Zimmerman DID harass Martin? Not all all. Does this mean that Zimmerman killed Martin in cold blood? Not at all. At the end of the day, we don't know what happened based on the evidence, but we can collaborate some of Zimmerman's story with it though.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;920021]@ fd - The girlfriend's testimony make's it very clear that Zimmerman was following Martin. Her phone records will show the time of the conversation.

As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans.

A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.[/quote]
It's SCIENCE!!!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;920023]It's SCIENCE!!![/quote]

That is so f***'ing beyond excellent, I am [I]almost[/I] speechless with laughter.

I will be laughing at that all day and into tomorrow "Kowalski"!!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=skinsguy;920000]Let me say this again, because I don't think you were able to grasp the concept.[/quote]

I didn't agree with you, it's hardly the same as 'not getting it'.

[quote=skinsguy;920000]The programmer's only source of data to use for such a program would be prior trial outcomes, convictions or what not. [/quote]

Oh, boy......

[quote=skinsguy;920000]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.[/quote]

This would be funny if you were intentionally trying to amuse me. You're serious.....holy crap. Do you know what a qubit is?

[quote=skinsguy;920000]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. [/quote]

So why are you suggesting the computer would think for itself? Hold tight, it's almost here.

[quote=skinsguy;920000]Programmers get paid to program, not to become legal judges. [/quote]

That makes no sense, we wouldn't be asking them to.

[quote=skinsguy;920000]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.[/quote]

It would if it were programmed to.

[quote=skinsguy;920000] 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.[/quote]

How about a judicial committee?

[quote=skinsguy;920000] A computer cannot determine it, it can only determine data based on the commands it was told to perform. Nothing more and nothing less.[/quote]

Therefore a computer could determine 'it'.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;920021]As for RR's -- despite the fact that none have existed to date, fundamental to his argument is the belief that an "unbiased programmer" can exist who will create a system to govern humanity better then the we poor, backward and deeply flawed luddites could ever hope to do. [/quote]

Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.
[quote=JoeRedskin;920021] In accepting this as a truism, RR demonstrates faith in a being whose existence he cannot prove and in whom he will entrust the judgment of life and death over humans. [/quote]

I do not accept that as a truism, it's just your weak attempt to frame an argument I'm not making in order to weaken my argument.

[quote=JoeRedskin;920021]A man of such deep and unprovable faith cannot be convinced of the fallacy of said faith.[/quote]

Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Fascinating discussion...I'm also interested in knowing what kind of algorithm/logic this Perfect Judge computer will use? Who writes the logic? Are we going to outsource the work?

...tell me more.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920031]Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.[/quote]

Your faith in the ability of a group of flawed human programmers to overcome the flaws of a single programmer is reassuring - especially since it is a provable theory supported by extrinsic historical evidence.

All hail the imperfect beings' perfect creation.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=saden1;920032]Fascinating discussion...I'm also interested in knowing what kind of algorithm/logic this Perfect Judge computer will use? Who writes the logic? Are we going to outsource the work?

...tell me more.[/quote]

No worries saden1, the prophet RR shall preach unto you of acheivable perfection through imperfect means. The algorithm will come ... trust in science.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920031]Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha![/quote]

<sigh> and here I thought you were intelligent enough to see the thinly veiled - but cleverly invoked - sarcasm. I'll try to be less subtle in the future.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.

That's fascinating....

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Lawyers would never allow it to happen because then they couldn't pick the dumbest people on earth to sit on a jury.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

Dismissive of technology? No. A belief that it can achieve perfection in governance? Likewise, no.

Open to superstition? Where oh where is the "Captain Deflection" avatar when you need it?!
<points and laughs at RR>

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

I'm done. I'll be back when we are discussing the Martin case again.

RR, thanks for a wonderfully amusing extended lunch. Watching you twist your way to the conclusion that a roomfull of programers overseen by a judicial rules committee could create an omniscient machine dispensing a new and improved justice for all has been beyond amusing. Thank you.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920026]I didn't agree with you, it's hardly the same as 'not getting it'.[/quote]

Oh, boy.....


[quote=RedskinRat;920026]This would be funny if you were intentionally trying to amuse me. You're serious.....holy crap. Do you know what a qubit is?[/quote]

Don't try to throw out quantum computing terms in hopes of making yourself look smart when you have already displayed no working knowledge in computer programming yourself, let alone simple logic.



[quote=RedskinRat;920026]So why are you suggesting the computer would think for itself? Hold tight, it's almost here.[/quote]

How in the world did you get THAT from me saying a computer only does what it is instructed to do by the end user or the programmer? Does that even remotely suggest that I said a computer would think for itself? Seriously, are you that retarded?


[quote=RedskinRat;920026]That makes no sense, we wouldn't be asking them to.[/quote]

Then why in the world would you be worried about the bias of the programmers?


[quote=RedskinRat;920026]It would if it were programmed to.[/quote]

No, it would simply not.



[quote=RedskinRat;920026]How about a judicial committee?[/quote]

Nope. According to you, that doesn't work. The judicial committee is made up of humans, therefore, the computer system would not work completely separate from any human intervention.



[quote=RedskinRat;920026]Therefore a computer could determine 'it'.[/quote]

No, the computer does nothing more than follow a list of commands.

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=firstdown;920044]Lawyers would never allow it to happen because then they couldn't pick the dumbest people on earth to sit on a jury.[/quote]

Damn it! Voire dire just pissed on my argument!

Re: Trayvon Martin Case
 

[quote=RedskinRat;920031]Why would we use one programmer? The system would be inherently flawed. We would use a consortium that had no larger picture of the end product that would enable them to game the system. Your argument is invalid.



I do not accept that as a truism, it's just your weak attempt to frame an argument I'm not making in order to weaken my argument.



Oh, like religious types? Ok, gotcha![/quote]

Hey asshat, try actually quoting the right person.

[QUOTE=RedskinRat;920042]It's interesting to me to see how people are dismissive of technology and yet completely open to superstition.

That's fascinating....[/QUOTE]


I am not dismissive of technology at all. Give me problems which require pure data analysis and strict guidelines and I am all for it. I would love, for example, if all cars drove themselves. What I don't yet see any proof of is fuzzy logic reaching anywhere near the sophistication needed to handle ethical jurisprudence. So far all you have offered is a group of programmers guided by judicial ovesight with some adaptive logic added.

Let me ask, for clarity, are you saying that a replacement system could be made with today's technology, or are you sugesting we should, as a society, set the development of said system as a goal like the race to the moon of old.