Trayvon Martin Case

[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 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.

[HailGreen28]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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)?

Couldn't the details of each case be listed as part of the database? I think the fact patterns would basically write themselves in searches of the database, if the details of the cases were given relevance based on what was proven in court.

Just thought of a point against "robo-judge". These fact patterns couldn't be evidence in themselves of guilt. Just because say a person in Arkansas in a city that is arrested for larceny with a prior charge but no conviction while robbing a department store at 3pm during the summer is 90% likely to have committed the crime. But maybe you could use the database to sort what factors are used to prove innocence or guilt? That witness statements are the deciding factor, or employees accounts? And determine guilt or innocence based on what evidence convicts people in previous cases. So you input the details of the case, and get a verdict based on those detail. Could we assign a weight or percent to evidence based on credibility with a computer like we do as people?

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

No, I didn't know that organizations like Westlaw and LexisNexis existed. Neat and makes sense. Sounds like these works should be certified (maybe already are?) and required use for all jurists. Not to follow whatever patterns these organizations would recommend based on just a search, but every attorney/judge required to know how to use and have an active account with a certified database. Even if it is kinda redundant to what people have to know now.

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

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.

I'm thinking it may be possible to write algorithms to do that by computer. Starting with the sentence for a conviction being "x" based on precendent, and working on a program to determine guilt based not just on precedent but weighing the appropriate facts. Would still need proceedings and qualified officers of the court to get and weigh the evidence, and I'm sure there's a lot I'm missing. But how does this sound so far?

[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.