World, Writing, Wealth discussion

World & Current Events > Is justice impartial?

Comments Showing 1-13 of 13 (13 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 16030 comments Impartiality should result from applying objective criteria to each case. However, those who apply - judges and/or jury, can't be devoid subjectivity. It's human nature to develop feelings, sympathy or antipathy. Moreover, bias and prejudice cannot be ruled out too.
Thus, pure impartiality is hardly realistic.
What do you think? And can artificial intelligence maybe do a better job?

message 2: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11762 comments It is an interesting question. I think there are at least three separate situations - where moral judgements are made, political judgments, and criminal cases.

On the moral issues, like abortion, the judgment varies from place to place, depending on the degree of conservatism/religious feelings, and that can't be right. In my opinion, there should be one clear law. On the political example, consider the election Gore/Bush. It all fell down to whether votes in Florida should be counted, and it seems to me that politically appointed judges are wrong for that sort of decision. So it is quite possible that AI would do a better job. A machine is devoid of emotion and it will decide quite logically was rule (a) met or was it not? A simple discrete choice is optimal for a machine because that is how it operates.

However, for criminal events, I am not so sure. The machine cannot decide "Witness A may well be lying." The machine can only operate on the "fact" that something happened, or did not happen. "Not sure" is not one of its options, and while juries often get things wrong too, I think they are better than machines because at least they can read body language. There is also the question of the "expert witness". I think the court needs some independent experts to advise the jury on the probability that some such evidence is valid or not, and whether far too much is being made of some observations.

message 3: by Jeff (new)

Jeff (thelongwait) | 51 comments A favorite quote:
Justice? You get justice in the next world. In this world you get the law.

And unfortunately it rings true.

message 4: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6151 comments It makes sense to me in criminal law that a human who commits a crime be judged by other humans. I certainly wouldn't want AI to be the judge.

message 5: by Nik (last edited May 13, 2018 03:45AM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 16030 comments In situs where people automatically get a speeding ticket based on traffic camera, designed to recognize speeding and traffic light violations, although simplistic, may be deemed as AI's indictment -:)
Once thought scanning becomes possible, the entire trial process can probably be automatized

message 6: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11762 comments Here, anyway, if you get such a speeding ticket, you are still entitled to your day in court. To the best of my knowledge, nobody does. With any brains, you pay the fine, and get out of the mess while the going is as good as it is going to get.

message 7: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6151 comments Thought scanning? God forbid. What would it take to scan thoughts?

message 8: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11762 comments To some extent, brain scanning now can pick up some instructions, at least, but reading minds is not on so far. (At least as far as I know.)

message 9: by Nik (last edited May 17, 2018 11:39AM) (new)

Nik Krasno | 16030 comments If they say thoughts are electro-chemical reactions, I guess one day we'll have scanners. A polygraph is a primitive one, but more advanced stuff will be (is being?) developed. Have no doubts..

message 10: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11762 comments Nik wrote: "If they say thoughts are electro-chemical reactions, I guess one day we'll have scanners. A polygraph is a primitive one, but more advanced stuff will be (is being?) developed. Have no doubts.."

Time to install some doubts :-) To the extent thinking involves movement of micro electric charge, there will be micro magnetic fields generated, and they could be scanned, but they only tell you what the subject is thinking, and not what he thought. Chemical changes will be dry to that type of scanner, so you may get only partial information. Further, memory is presumably stored chemically, and that will be dark to that type of scanner.

message 11: by Nik (new)

Nik Krasno | 16030 comments Now, that the doubts are installed, I guess we'll need to have ppl rethink the subject of interest through asking the relevant questions while scanning? -:) Polygraph - model 2019 maybe

message 12: by Ian (new)

Ian Miller | 11762 comments Subject should get around that by thinking something innocuous, like counting from 100 backwards repeatedly :-)

message 13: by Scout (new)

Scout (goodreadscomscout) | 6151 comments Well, I'm just happy to know that there's not some technology that can read thoughts. And I hope there never will be. That would be the ultimate invasion of privacy.

back to top