Particularly heinous crimes are already given tougher sentences and sentencing is up to the judges discretion. If we didn't incorporate the human factor we wouldn't need a jury. Your guilt or innocents could be calculated by a computer with a corresponding sentence. Maybe this would be more fair then our current methods? What do you think, trial by computer?

A computer can't really distinguish innocent from guilty.

Even after processing the information? If the evidence was inconclusive a defendant would have to be deemed innocent, as it should be in a jury trial.

A computer will never know more than what you tell it. If you tell a computer a person is guilty, it will repeat that information back to you. Otherwise, all it can do is odds and probability, and even those are subjective in matters of law. A computer would recognize that there's always some chance of innocence and thus always let the criminal go, which is hardly the ideal solution we're looking for.

If you combine the two, it would probably elimniate prejudice from judgement, though.

It would be a programme though. With the probability percentage of eg/ 90 and above being guilty. It could be connected to a main frame with access to all precedents for either side. It could probably take the place of lawyers even, now that's gotta be a good thing. Only having investigators imputing information pertinent to the case.

why not have a computer do it? crimes appear to be judged by set rules and information anyway....

I want you people to take a second. Stop typing or whatever.


Breathe.


Think.


You've suggested that a computer should determine people's guilt and innocence.


Now think about that, and all the implications it has. Then get back to me.

ok, very well......first off, in some way we already rely on computers, like those lie-detector tests (which i think eveyone should be administered to)...... a computer should not actually determine a person guilty or not, but maybe the justice system could have more of a stability if a computer was introduced.....per se, a computer goes through all its functions to help sentencing based on similar crimes, etc......but in all seriousness, i do not actually think a computer should be used for determining justice (except for lie detectors).......

Hey I was just trying to think outside the box, well incorporate the box really.
Sixxx, ya splita! Lie detectors should definitely be implemented.
Dark Messiah, what does the human element bring to 'blind justice' anyway? How many people have ended up on death row who are innocent but been condemned by a jury. Have you done jury duty before? They insist on the jury being as impartial and unfettered by emotion as possible to weigh up the information. Prosecution and Defence both want to 'stack' the jury in their favour, why? So the outcome won't be impartial? Com'on give me a scenario where we need the human factor?

Any case at all. A computer is incapable of thought or logic. Do you know ANYTHING about computers?

you really enjoy chastising people for their ignorance, don't you?

No. I'm really apalled by the way that some people are willing to throw away their own freedom, and that of those around them.

Sad, isn't it?

depends on how one looks at it.....i could definately throw my freedom, and the freedom of another, depending on the situation........you know the example i intend to give, so i won't.....there again we have a problem with morality.......

Okay it would be a pretty elaborate programme and some human intervention may be necessary but I'm sure, without going to extremes, you get my drift. Maybe if you knew the court system better you could see the rigid structure that depends on neither logic nor thought. Do we have to argue semantics or are you not willing to open your mind to any other, yet unimagined alternative unless the programme is written. We'd still be in the dark ages.

And I really don't get the lack of freedom issue, are you speaking generally or in relation to my suggestion?

a) I get your drift. It's a stupid drift. That's it. There's no room for "let's agree to disagree here". What you're talking about is something straight out of a Ray Bradbury horror story.

b) Opening my mind doesn't mean pretending stupid ideas are as valid as non-stupid ones.

c) Your "dark ages" bit is totally irrelevant. Not every change constitutes progress. Most don't, in fact.

e) Both in relation to your suggestion and in general.

mean little shit ain't ya.......

I try.