Some Hope For Better Justice

[Cooky]

In the news....
Robot judges that determine guilt or innocence will be 'commonplace in 50 years'
Excerpted.....
Robot judges that can determine guilt or innocence will be commonplace in the English legal system within 50 years, experts have claimed.

Scientists say the the bots will be able to conclude whether someone is guilty or innocent with a 99% accuracy rate by analysing body language.

One believes the physical and psychological signs of dishonesty will be identified using an array of cameras.

Signs that signal “wrongdoing or probable falsehoods” could include irregular speech patters, an increase in body temperature and hand and eye movements.
:
:
AI judges in Estonia are being considered to clear court backlogs by adjudicating in small claims of up to £7,000.

Two opposing parties will upload documents to support their claims and AI tech will analyse these submissions and issue a decision.

If either party is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can appeal the decision to a human judge.

Hey, I know... Let's think of the worst possible ideas imaginable and try to make them a reality!

 

[Revoltingest]

Interesting. Wonder how they would judge a full blown Sociopath? Or if the person who committed the crime was convinced they were justified.

Suppose it cold work for small claims...also suppose you could end up with an AI version of Judge Roy Bean

This is why I initially expressed skepticism for AI judging honesty.
But where it would excel is evaluation of law & evidence.
This has obvious potential.

 

[Revoltingest]

As described, this is just a jumped-up lie detector.

That is just one aspect of AI judging.
I don't find it so useful.

People lie all the time. It does not make them guilty of a particular crime. You need a damned sight more than a lie detector to determine guilt in a court of law.

Hence my focus upon evaluating law & evidence.
You didn't miss that, did you?

 

[Revoltingest]

Hey, I know... Let's think of the worst possible ideas imaginable and try to make them a reality!

The worst possible idea is already in place.....
Judges who once were, & will again be lawyers.
They have a vested interest in a system that
favors feathering their own nest, rather than
cheap, fair, & efficient justice.
AI judges just want electricity & occasional
dusting of their circuits.

 

[exchemist]

That is just one aspect of AI judging.
I don't find it so useful.

Hence my focus upon evaluating law & evidence.
You didn't miss that, did you?

Yes but you made that bit up. There's next to nothing about that in the article.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes but you made that bit up. There's next to nothing about that in the article.

This is because I have greater vision
than the article's author.
I made my hope clear in the 2nd post.

 

[joe1776]

Machines offer the potential to eschew individual prejudice,
incompetence, & corruption. It's worth a try. And remember
that appeals are still an option.

Advanced methods of human decision-making are possible to eschew individual prejudice, incompetence and corruption while also being able to explain the human reasoning so that people will trust them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Advanced methods of human decision-making are possible to eschew individual prejudice, incompetence and corruption while also able to explain the reasoning so that people will trust them.

AI judges would have to present analysis justifying a decision.
Such transparency would be essential.

 

[exchemist]

This is because I have greater vision
than the article's author.
I made my hope clear in the 2nd post.

Well fair enough, but as of now that is just your personal futuristic "vision", rather than anything in the news.

I think that's a huge challenge and not the least part of it will be getting the public to have faith in bot justice. In the end, we need a system society has faith in. I know the US justice system is pretty far gone, but other countries have systems that still work, more or less. So for those of us outside the US, the tipping point at which we prefer to trust robot judges more than human ones will be in a different place.

Meanwhile, you may want to consider that the impartiality of a robot judge is only as good as the impartiality with which its algorithms are written. Who determines that, and who audits the code? Barr's US Justice Department ? An office of Trump's US Supreme Court? Hmm.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well fair enough, but as of now that is just your personal futuristic "vision", rather than anything in the news.

We may be inspired by an article without
being limited by its narrow vision.

I think that's a huge challenge and not the least part of it will be getting the public to have faith in bot justice.

I scoff at faith.
AI analysis & decisions should be transparent
& subject to review by the parties involved.

You wouldn't be defending the status quo now,
would you?

 

[Stevicus]

In the news....
Robot judges that determine guilt or innocence will be 'commonplace in 50 years'
Excerpted.....
Robot judges that can determine guilt or innocence will be commonplace in the English legal system within 50 years, experts have claimed.

Scientists say the the bots will be able to conclude whether someone is guilty or innocent with a 99% accuracy rate by analysing body language.

One believes the physical and psychological signs of dishonesty will be identified using an array of cameras.

Signs that signal “wrongdoing or probable falsehoods” could include irregular speech patters, an increase in body temperature and hand and eye movements.
:
:
AI judges in Estonia are being considered to clear court backlogs by adjudicating in small claims of up to £7,000.

Two opposing parties will upload documents to support their claims and AI tech will analyse these submissions and issue a decision.

If either party is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can appeal the decision to a human judge.

 

[joe1776]

AI judges would have to present analysis justifying a decision.
Such transparency would be essential.

This doesn't sound like an analysis based on human reasoning.:

One believes the physical and psychological signs of dishonesty will be identified using an array of cameras.

Signs that signal “wrongdoing or probable falsehoods” could include irregular speech patters, an increase in body temperature and hand and eye movements.

 

[Revoltingest]

View attachment 44261

 

[Revoltingest]

This doesn't sound like an analysis based on human reasoning.:

One believes the physical and psychological signs of dishonesty will be identified using an array of cameras.

Signs that signal “wrongdoing or probable falsehoods” could include irregular speech patters, an increase in body temperature and hand and eye movements.

Indeed, that part strikes me as dubious.
Thus I made the 2nd post to focus upon the part I like.

 

[Wu Wei]

This is why I initially expressed skepticism for AI judging honesty.
But where it would excel is evaluation of law & evidence.
This has obvious potential.

But it would adhere to the strict interpretation of the law, which may or may not be a good thing. This is generally judged, by a human, on a case by case basis. At the level of law enforcement there is generally no place for interpretation. The written law is what is followed, it is pretty cut and dried. But in a court, there is room and there are also degrees of crimes, Petit, Misdemeanor, Felony, and various degrees of each of those as well.

Your pulled over for using a cell phone, by law there is a punishment, do you go with the full enforcement of said law, maximum fine and associated car insurance increases, for a first offender who has been driving for many years with no other offense, not even a traffic ticket. Or do you charge them with something lessor that only requires a smaller fine. But same could be said for a murder too, but what are the extenuating circumstances, if any, was it self defense, was it premeditated, is it actually manslaughter. Following a programmed in law, there is no difference, it is a killing therefore it is either Murder or Man slaughter...that is if you program in motives and premeditation to the computer system that is doing the judging.

Keep it to the level of small claims and maybe (and I do mean maybe) you have something, But get any higher than that, and I think you have a lot more problems that solutions

Also note, there was a prediction, about 15 years ago, computer technicians would no longer be needed in about 10 years because computers would be able to fix themselves.....15 years later all I can tell you is that there seems to be more for a human to fix now, than there was 15 years ago

Additionally, all the terms for various crimes that I am using come from NYS, that is what i am most familiar with

And lastly, I personally do not think robo-justice wold be better....just more sever, and more sterile

 

[exchemist]

We may be inspired by an article without
being limited by its narrow vision.

I scoff at faith.
AI analysis & decisions should be transparent
& subject to review by the parties involved.

You wouldn't be defending the status quo now,
would you?

I'm a conservative.

I think the legal status quo ante in most N European countries is worth defending. There's a huge amount of self-serving IT hype around these days.

Regarding faith in justice, if you do not achieve that, you have no hope of enforcing the law in a democracy.

 

[Revoltingest]

But it would adhere to the strict interpretation of the law, which may or may not be a good thing.

Strict interpretation has its advantages & disadvantages.
But the ability to ignore good law to impose bad decisions
is also a problem. I see AI as offering us better justice.

This is generally judged, by a human, on a case by case basis. At the level of law enforcement there is generally no place for interpretation. The written law is what is followed, it is pretty cut and dried.

In my experience, it can be murky.
For example, local zoning laws & housing codes can conflict
with state & federal fair housing laws, eg, limits on occupancy
levels & family relationships.
I've walked over that snake pit....it means deciding meeting
the laws most likely to bite one the hardest, while violating
the laws posing the least threat.

But in a court, there is room and there are also degrees of crimes, Petit, Misdemeanor, Felony, and various degrees of each of those as well.

Would AI be worse than human judges at this?
I don't think so. But again, there is the ability
to appeal a decision.

Your pulled over for using a cell phone, by law there is a punishment, do you go with the full enforcement of said law, maximum fine and associated car insurance increases, for a first offender who has been driving for many years with no other offense, not even a traffic ticket. Or do you charge them with something lessor that only requires a smaller fine. But same could be said for a murder too, but what are the extenuating circumstances, if any, was it self defense, was it premeditated, is it actually manslaughter. Following a programmed in law, there is no difference, it is a killing therefore it is either Murder or Man slaughter...that is if you program in motives and premeditation to the computer system that is doing the judging.

Under the current system, judges have leeway. This can
allow for prejudicial punishment of some, & leniency towards
others.
With AI, intended public policy can be uniformly implemented,
thereby eliminating black robe syndrome. If the algorithm's
analysis is faulty, it can be challenged in an appeal.

Keep it to the level of small claims and maybe (and I do mean maybe) you have something, But get any higher than that, and I think you have a lot more problems that solutions

Higher level trials are where the most egregious
examples of judicial misconduct & malconduct thrive.

Also note, there was a prediction, about 15 years ago, computer technicians would no longer be needed in about 10 years because computers would be able to fix themselves.....15 years later all I can tell you is that there seems to be more for a human to fix now, than there was 15 years ago

Additionally, all the terms for various crimes that I am using come from NYS, that is what i am most familiar with

As I stated before, lack of perfection shouldn't doom a system.
But if it did, we'd have to chuck the current one too, being that
it's riddled with fallible & corrupt humans.

Consider an analog....
In the last couple years have computers been able to play
go at a professional level. They've discovered novel moves
that humans have been able to understand & verify as good.
AI legal judgments would be similarly verifiable. And they
can deliver the goods in a fraction of the time & cost, while
remaining available for examination by all interested parties.
There's potential for useful progress in our horribly expensive,
capricious, corrupt, inept, emotional, & snail paced system,
Booboo Bear.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm a conservative.

I think the legal status quo ante in most N European countries is worth defending. There's a huge amount of self-serving IT hype around these days.

Regarding faith in justice, if you do not achieve that, you have no hope of enforcing the law in a democracy.

You conservatives.....if you had your way,
we'd be traveling in horse drawn buggies.

I've never experienced court in Eurostan.
But I have here, & find the process rife
with ineptitude, corruption, & procedural
impediments that would make a Vogon
jealous.

 

[Wu Wei]

Strict interpretation has its advantages & disadvantages.
But the ability to ignore good law to impose bad decisions
is also a problem. I see AI as offering us better justice.

In my experience, it can be murky.
For example, local zoning laws & housing codes can conflict
with state & federal fair housing laws, eg, limits on occupancy
levels & family relationships.
I've walked over that snake pit....it means deciding meeting
the laws most likely to bite one the hardest, while violating
the laws posing the least threat.

You do realize we are talking about to entirely different areas of the justice system don't you. You are talking property and I am talking Criminal

Would AI be worse than human judges at this?
I don't think so. But again, there is the ability
to appeal a decision.

Then we disagree, and I'm ok with that, And I have no intention of trying to change your mind on this

Under the current system, judges have leeway. This can
allow for prejudicial punishment of some, & leniency towards
others.
With AI, intended public policy can be uniformly implemented,
thereby eliminating black robe syndrome. If the algorithm's
analysis is faulty, it can be challenged in an appeal.

Rather have that than have a guy sentenced to life in prison, who did not actually do the crime, do to other issues in the system. Not ready to throw all responsibility for my actions, or any other humans actions to AI just yet. And can it be changed in an appeal if the defendant is dead? Or if the defendant lost everything due to a faulty judgement all because we wanted to be free of blame and from taking responsibility

Higher level trials are where the most egregious
examples of judicial misconduct & malconduct thrive.

My background and past training is at this level and again, we do not agree. I think think electronic judges at this level would be far more detrimental than helpful and wold not offset the bad judges in the system at all. Also take into account where those laws come from, a change, by a political human would then allow for no interpretation by a judge and only allow for the preprogrammed judgement of a computer

As I stated before, lack of perfection shouldn't doom a system.
But if it did, we'd have to chuck the current one too, being that
it's riddled with fallible & corrupt humans.

Again a disagreement, I don't see it as riddled with "fallible & corrupt humans" at the level of the court. Now where meny of those laws originate and are passed, that is another story and a robo-judge would not fix that issue. It would just give that level more power and authority and remove the nuisance they have of a judge that can interpret differently

But I am also not dooming the system, neither should you doom the currently system based on real estate court issues. My view is it is not ready, not even close nor has it even been tested. If it comes into the system, as a viable solution, it is years and years away.

Consider an analog....
In the last couple years have computers been able to play
go at a professional level. They've discovered novel moves
that humans have been able to understand & verify as good.
AI legal judgments would be similarly verifiable. And they
can deliver the goods in a fraction of the time & cost, while
remaining available for examination by all interested parties.
There's potential for useful progress in our horribly expensive,
capricious, corrupt, inept, emotional, & snail paced system,
Booboo Bear.

Big difference from wining a game and judging a persons to lif in prison or death. Also a big difference from programming a computer to make moves and come up with moves on a board than programing in copious laws and then expecting the program it to come up with new and amazing interpretations of those laws. (don't believe me, take a look a a book of criminal procedure law, or for that matter Vehicle and traffic laws, there are tons of them to varying degrees of level and charge) And I am not joking here, you do have a engineer's POV, this comes as no surprise, and that is good in many things, but in this however I do not feel that view is the one to follow.

And as with many things today, I do not feel that everything should be evaluated in the terms of time and cost. The system has problems, many of those crated by the politicians who pass the laws they come up with. A robo-judge will not fix that, only give them more control since there is no other voice to argue for or against. And I do not think dehumanizing the legal system is the proper approach, nor do I think it will make it better, I do feel it will create a lot more guilty sentences, thereby sending more to prison, some admittedly deservedly so, thereby overloading an already overloaded system and based on that alone there are no cost savings, only more expenses. My view ,when we are talking human lives, I am no so sure it should be treated like a commodity with concerns of time and cost.

And now at the prison level....there is corruption in that system, do we then replace guards and wardens with robots.....how about police.....fixing the problems in any "human" system are not easy. It takes a lot of people with the drive to do it to fix it. Sadly today I have little faith that there are enough to take on that fight in any of these 'Human" systems. To many looking for a quick and easy solution, how to make the most money, gain the most power and to many willing to listen to be told what to think.... butI do not think a robo-judge is anything more than greater addition to that overall problem, not a solution...at least not for a long, long time.

And then there are hackers, nation state hackers with virtually unlimited resources. They try and influence our elections, what make you think they would nto try and influence our laws. We're are behind the 8 ball in may of the IT security systems at the government in some rather surprising areas. Again, don't think a robo-judge is a good idea at an IT security level either

We do not agree, we will not agree and I do not plan on expending a whole lot of time in a back and forth showing you the evil of your ways while you in turn try and show me the evil in mine, whilst we both spin our wheels going no where as the great keyboard warriors of anonymity we are.

 

[Vee]

In the news....
Robot judges that determine guilt or innocence will be 'commonplace in 50 years'
Excerpted.....
Robot judges that can determine guilt or innocence will be commonplace in the English legal system within 50 years, experts have claimed.

Scientists say the the bots will be able to conclude whether someone is guilty or innocent with a 99% accuracy rate by analysing body language.

One believes the physical and psychological signs of dishonesty will be identified using an array of cameras.

Signs that signal “wrongdoing or probable falsehoods” could include irregular speech patters, an increase in body temperature and hand and eye movements.
:
:
AI judges in Estonia are being considered to clear court backlogs by adjudicating in small claims of up to £7,000.

Two opposing parties will upload documents to support their claims and AI tech will analyse these submissions and issue a decision.

If either party is dissatisfied with the outcome, they can appeal the decision to a human judge.

Didn't we have enough weird already this year?