Trayvon Martin Case

[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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Not true. A computer does exactly what it's told, either by the end user or by the programmed instructions from the programmer.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

Or exploited by some weasel defense attorney.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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.

[NC_Skins]

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

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.

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

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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

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.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

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.

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.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

That's why they get paid the big bucks.

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

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Which over time would correct the erroneous and biased prior verdicts.

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.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

Let me say this again, because I don't think you were able to grasp the concept.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

The programmer's only source of data to use for such a program would be prior trial outcomes, convictions or what not.

Oh, boy......

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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

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

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

It would if it were programmed to.

Originally Posted by skinsguy

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.

How about a judicial committee?

Originally Posted by skinsguy

A computer cannot determine it, it can only determine data based on the commands it was told to perform. Nothing more and nothing less.

Therefore a computer could determine 'it'.