Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!nbires!hao!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on recent postings...
Message-ID: <497@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jul-86 20:20:35 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.497
Posted: Thu Jul 24 20:20:35 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jul-86 06:34:35 EDT
Reply-To: hplabs!taylor
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 44
Approved: taylor@hplabs
Reference: <472@hplabsc.UUCP>


Eugene Miya says;

> [computers are] just another set of toys to distract juries and judges from 
> issues at hand.  Sure, one or two real uses, but justice?  Lawyers need more
> education. naw.

Just to play devils advocate, I disagree.  I think that there are a lot of
cases where concise unbiased analysis would have been very significant in
the ultimate decision made.

For example in a case where a person feigns insanity to escape a harsh
verdict, instead of having a person who can be easily cross-examined and
have their otherwise excellent testimony called into question, if a 
computer system were accepted by the community (e.g. the Bar + Courts)
as a valid test, no amount of familial abuse, or whathaveyou could 
bias the testimony.

I think that at the more `prestigious' cases (what a strange concept) like
celebrities on trial for something or, perhaps a better example, cases to
do with organized crime (another strange concept, if you think about it)
no amount of coercion could influence the system (no "if you testify 
against bugsy we'll break ya kids face!" phone calls at three in the
morning or anything).  I think that would be a significant step forward.

People are always complaining that justice isn't fair, well here's a 
way to perhaps even it up a bit.  It would be GREAT if it couldn't 
tell if the person were rich, poor, a minority or whatever and simply
be a witness based on THE FACTS ALONE.  Let's face it, we're all human
and we all have biases.  Even the best judges prefer certain racial/
religious/sexual/etc traits in people and are therefore liable to be
slightly more lenient towards people they like.  Computers can't do
that.

On the other hand, it really leaves the possibility of tampering wide
open.  You can harass a person, but you can't alter the structure of
their mind (well, you can, but they won't be much use at a trial after-
wards).  Computers could be reprogrammed, or could be given a set of
routines to determine if a name is a minority, or a certain sex, or
whatever (in fact, they could hook into IRS or NCIC or something!) (a
truly frightening thought - "You're innocent according to the computer
analysis, but since you turn out to owe $200 in back taxes we're going
to toss you into jail anyway").

						-- Dave