Trayvon Martin Case

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

An unarmed teen carrying tea and skittles, on his way home, got shot in the chest and people are too emotionally charged?

And comments like Obama's "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

Anybody else in favor of trial by professional jurists? Or robots? So people's emotions don't play a role in this?

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

And comments like Obama's "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon."

Anybody else in favor of trial by professional jurists? Or robots? So people's emotions don't play a role in this?

Of course emotions are involved.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by HailGreen28

anybody else in favor of trial by professional jurists? Or robots? So people's emotions don't play a role in this?

It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.

because human compassion, bias, idiosyncrasies have no place in taking note of circumstances surrounding a human action/inaction.

Let's here it for I, Robot jurists (I wonder how sentencing a man to 15 years to life fits in the 3 laws)...

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.

No. It wouldn't. Law is a human creation intended to be for humans and adjudicated by humans. Inherent in its creation is the use and consideration of human emotions (bias, mercy, prejudice, compassion, etc.). To then remove emotion from the application of such a creation is to create a systematic flaw. The resultant and inherently inhuman application of such laws would lead to attrocities and the "logical/rational" choices in which a mechanical being would make no attempt to save a drowning child. For good or ill, the law is our creation. It is meant for us and for us to apply it. I for one, chose not to surrender the adjudication of my actions to a highly sophisticated calculator. Accordingly, I will ask no one else to either.

As with calumny, the way to deal with demagougery is to expose it as such. Here, just read through the past posts to see how the media has manipulated emotions.

@12 - An unarmed teen was shot and killed. You're familiar with Baltimore - you know that happens a lot in our gritty little city. Is your emotional outrage equally obvious for the victims? Or is it reserved for media driven side shows of race baiting (Before the Martin case, had you ever heard of a "white latino"?)

Zimmerman lied about his income and passport. He did so as part of a bond hearing. Normally such testimony is given under oath. Regardless, the misrepresentations were made in open court with the intent for the judge to rely on them. This will come out at trial and I am sure it will do no benefit to Zimmerman.

Again, had this not been so racially charged at its inception - would we be hearing about it? How many folks in Baltimore City Circuit Court lie daily about the facts surrounding their crime. Yet, somehow, shockingly, they fail to make national news.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. It wouldn't. Law is a human creation intended to be for humans and adjudicated by humans.

So are computers.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Inherent in its creation is the use and consideration of human emotions (bias, mercy, prejudice, compassion, etc.). To then remove emotion from the application of such a creation is to create a systematic flaw.

I'm not seeing any evidence of the removal of human flaws creating a more flawed system.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The resultant and inherent inhuman application of such laws would lead to attrocities and the "logical/rational" choices in which a mechanical being would make no attempt to save a drowning child.

WTF?!?!??! Where are you getting this from?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For good or ill, the law is our creation. It is meant for us and for us to apply it. I for one, chose not to surrender the adjudication of my actions to a highly sophisticated calculator. Accordingly, I will ask no one else to either.

It's called progress.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

No. It wouldn't. Law is a human creation intended to be for humans and adjudicated by humans.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

So are computers.

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Inherent in its creation is the use and consideration of human emotions (bias, mercy, prejudice, compassion, etc.). To then remove emotion from the application of such a creation is to create a systematic flaw.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I'm not seeing any evidence of the removal of human flaws creating a more flawed system.

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. 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.

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.e. 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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The resultant and inherently inhuman application of such laws would lead to attrocities and the "logical/rational" choices in which a mechanical being would make no attempt to save a drowning child.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

WTF?!?!??! Where are you getting this from?

From the simple fact, as highlighted by CRed above that "being human" involves more than weighing odds and manipulating equations. The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval. 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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

For good or ill, the law is our creation. It is meant for us and for us to apply it. I for one, chose not to surrender the adjudication of my actions to a highly sophisticated calculator. Accordingly, I will ask no one else to either.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It's called progress.

I am sure you will be happy with the Borg assimilation.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Emotion has no place in law.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

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

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.e. 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.

Computers would allow a totally unbiased legal system.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

From the simple fact, as highlighted by CRed above that "being human" involves more than weighing odds and manipulating equations.

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

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval.

They can very easily be made so.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

And the system we have is so perfect?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

I am sure you will be happy with the Borg assimilation.

They move too slowly. Matrix, baby!

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

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.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Computers would allow a totally unbiased legal system.

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.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing. No human bias.

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.