Trayvon Martin Case

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

<SNIP>

Don't care. I'm taking about taking (hypothetically) the human error out of the judicial system. Replace judges and juries with a computerized adjudication system (simplistically speaking).

We already have laws in place that would need to be coded in conjunction with the penalties.

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Lotus

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

[Monksdown]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Hence, a computer program cannot currently adjudicate.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Apostasy!!! Heresy!!! How dare you throw logic in the face of science. The Algorithm will save us from ourselves and only through the Algorithm can perfection be achieved.

(simplistically speaking that is).

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A law and its breach can be converted into an equation?

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Consideration of ethical behavior derails a discussion of how to appropriately dispense justice??

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:

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:

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Emotion has no place in law.

After that, you stated your intent was:

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.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Words cannot express the deep irony of and the incredible humor I find in your devotion to science.

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!

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Prove this affirmative statement. You may have faith

Faith? No, I believe based on what I have studied and where 'things' are heading?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

including the parties’ states of mind at various point of the relevant timeline

Did I mention that I'm getting rid of insanity plea?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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".

I've already said we have 'ethics' in place.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

As articulated by Monksdown, ethics contains a variable not achievable by computers until the singularity has occurred.

Monksdown stated it, he didn't prove it.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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”.

No, I don't concede the point. It's just the best current hope hypothesized by people in this field.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

I'm working on it........

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A consideration of ethics is essential to your original assertion that “It would be a much safer world if computers ran the judicial system”

No. Still no. Nothing to do with the statement as we already have ethics in place.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

The pages of twists, turns and digressions

I have not twisted nor turned. What an odd thing to say.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

.... 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.

No, as I have already stated numerous times WE HAVE ETHICS IN PLACE NOW. Bringing up ethics is a weak attempt at derailing the conversation.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Oh, that's what this is really about? Please continue mocking me, I'll still be amused by your faith.

Preach on brother, your faith will see you through![/QUOTE]

I am not preaching, I leave that to your kind. Don't forget to pray tonight.......

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

as I have already stated numerous times WE HAVE ETHICS IN PLACE NOW.

NO WE DON'T. We have many competing and sometimes conflicting ethical theories in play. Take Ethics 101 please because any beginning ethics student ALREADY KNOWS THIS.

But let's play it your way: if we have one ethical system in place now, NAME IT.

[saden1]

How would this Perfect Judge computer handled the following situation:

You come home, you see another man in your home banging your wife in your bed. You pickup the butcher knife in the kitchen and swiftly execute the scoundrel by stabbing him the neck.

How would you translate this situation into a mathematical formula so as to produce a judgment that's more fair than one that could be delivered by 12 jurors?


Ethics isn't clear cut and dry. It's slimy and sometimes unsavory (i.e. the murder of a tyrant, wait, who designates who is a tyrant?).

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by saden1

How would this Perfect Judge computer handled the following situation:



How would you translate this situation into a mathematical formula so as to produce a judgment that's more fair than one that could be delivered by 12 jurors?


Ethics isn't clear cut and dry. It's slimy and sometimes unsavory (i.e. the murder of a tyrant, wait, who designates who is a tyrant?).

How about following IBM Watson's example and have a computer reference a database of legal precedents?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Faith? No, I believe based on what I have studied and where 'things' are heading?

Yup - My faith is based on the exact same type of "belief".
[EDIT - BTW, Nice quote of an incomplete sentence (conveniently leaving out the need for objective, extrinsically verifiable methodology to avoid faith based beliefs) ... but then, I am sure you would never call others up on that.]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Did I mention that I'm getting rid of insanity plea?

And what's your algorithm for determining legistlative intent? A party's intent when entering into a contract? Whether or not an individual had the appropriate mens rea to commit a specific offense?

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I've already said we have 'ethics' in place.

Ah, so, through all the written decisions, statutes regulations and legal treatises now in existence, we have acheived an ethical perfection that will be fully applicable to all future factual situations regardless of any technological advances, different economic realities or changing morays of society presented to us in the future. Excellent! Of course, certain fundamentalist groups of various religions would assert the we had acheived this perfection several hundred years ago.

Of course ... unlike such prior claims, your assertion that unchanging ethics will always render just results must be right because your assertion is based on science! Unproven and unverifiable science but science nonetheless ... b/c, as everyone knows, you don't need evidence for science.


...

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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”.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

No, I don't concede the point. It's just the best current hope hypothesized by people in this field.

What field? Computer programmers? Lawyers? Plumbers?

As I said, you dispute it ... so then prove it. At this point, you have not even demonstrated that it is a provable theory.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

[blah blah blah] ... No, as I have already stated numerous times WE HAVE ETHICS IN PLACE NOW. Bringing up ethics is a weak attempt at derailing the conversation.

Assuming arguendo that our current ethical system, as encapsulated in all written decisions, statutes regulations and legal treatises now in existence, will continue to render just results in all future fact patterns, -- if you wish all future generations to be bound by the ethics we "have ... in place now", the first step is to quanitfy them - please demonstrate that you can do so. Only then can you demonstrate the objective and verifiable truth of your statement that we would have a "safer world if computers ran the judicial system jury and sentencing".

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Oh, that's what this is really about? Please continue mocking me, I'll still be amused by your faith.

And I yours.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Preach on brother, your faith will see you through!

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

I am not preaching, I leave that to your kind.

"My kind"? Pray tell what "kind" that might be? Please point out to me where have "preached" my position or assertions based on "faith" or "belief" in this thread. Rather, I am simply seeking proof from the individual who has, in the past, asserted that the failure to provide tangible proof of a belief renders that belief invalid.

Is your faith in science that fragile that you must once again invoke "Captain Deflection"?

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Don't forget to pray tonight.......

I shan't. Thank you for the concern for my spiritual well being.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

But the judicial system is founded on ethics. So we are back to the same question which you keep avoiding: how does "a computerized adjudication system" make ethical decisions?

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.

Originally Posted by Monksdown

Until the advent of the singularity, a non-human cannot make an ethical determination. Ethics cannot be defined by a constant. Therefore, a math equation could not realistically encapsulate every variable it could represent.

Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

Then we already have ethics in place from which to model the decisions with supporting arguments pro and con.



Technological singularity is about to happen. Challenge accepted! (But not by me personally)

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

So I must ask the same question yet again because you keep avoiding it: Which ethical theory do we already have "in place" from which we can "model the decisions" without controversy or, in your claim, without bias?

This is a basic Ethics 101 question. Certainly, since you claim to have a superior system of justice, you can answer an Ethics 101 question about the foundations of such a system.

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

I could care less, I'm too busy trying to reprogram an old Commodore 64 to execute mice.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

You tell me, you've appointed yourself expert. I'm sure you won't deny we have a justice system in place, right? What are we currently using and why?

I could care less, I'm too busy trying to reprogram an old Commodore 64 to execute mice.

Three strikes, you're out.

I asked a simple, basic question about the ethical basis for the system of justice you are proposing. Three times you have failed to offer an intelligent response. Obviously you have not at all thought through the very foundation of your system.

The fact is, Monksdown was correct above. The fact is that you cannot simply turn ethical decisions into mathematical equations. Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this fact.

I suggest that before you start pontificating again about making ethics into quantifiable equations, you first learn the basics about what ethical theory is all about.

[RedskinRat]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Three strikes, you're out.

Like most of your comments that wasn't a strike. Also, you weren't appointed Ump so I'm still very 'In'.

Originally Posted by Lotus

I asked a simple, basic question about the ethical basis for the system of justice you are proposing.

Which I answered: Whatever 'we're' currently using. Why do you refuse to accept the answer?

Originally Posted by Lotus

Three times you have failed to offer an intelligent response. Obviously you have not at all thought through the very foundation of your system.

Again, I responded. Oh, and by the way; you can't count.

Originally Posted by Lotus

The fact is, Monksdown was correct above. The fact is that you cannot simply turn ethical decisions into mathematical equations. Anyone who knows anything about ethics knows this fact.

Do we have any ethics experts here? Any math experts? My theory is sound even without evidence.

Originally Posted by Lotus

I suggest that before you start pontificating again about making ethics into quantifiable equations, you first learn the basics about what ethical theory is all about.

Feel free to make any suggestions you like, you're not any kind of authority here so I'll continue to theorize to entertain myself and you can mock away.