Quote:
Originally Posted by HailGreen28
How about following IBM Watson's example and have a computer reference a database of legal precedents?
|
Which is, of course, fine in its limited capabilities - but that is merely data retrieval. The trick, of course, is discerning which "legal precedent", from the many similar but distinct past fact patterns applying the same law, is applicable to the entirely new fact pattern presented by your case. Essential to
that analysis is determining which particular prior distinct fact pattern - or combination of them - should be chosen to be applicable to you. (Why will one legal precedent create a more just result for you than another equally similar but distinct fact pattern)?
No one is saying that computers cannot aid in many respects and in some of the most cut and dried cases of "black letter law" matters do much of the work (for example - initial determinations on whether a car went through a red light). The problem, of course, is that the vast majority of cases adjudicated by the judicial system are not such cut and dry matters.
EDIT: By the way, you realize the "database of legal precedents" is in existence. I can access, through Westlaw and Lexus, every legal treatise published in the US since the 1700's and every case, statute and regulation from every jurisdiction since that time (excluding local regs and ordinances - but they exist in separate databases that could easily be linked for access by the Holy Algorithm). Further, they aren't just stored but linked through hyperlinks so that the evolution of the various concepts can be traced through prior cases. They are also categorized by paragraph as to the distinct legal concepts to which they are relevant.
The job of jurists and jurors everywhere is to determine what of that intertwined information is relevant to and how it is applicable to the distinct and specific set of facts each new matter presents.