Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!hplabs!hplabsc!taylor
From: taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor)
Newsgroups: mod.comp-soc
Subject: Re: Some thoughts on recent postings...
Message-ID: <503@hplabsc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jul-86 16:40:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: hplabsc.503
Posted: Mon Jul 28 16:40:38 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jul-86 21:55:45 EDT
Reply-To: hplabs!munnari!cidam.rmit.oz!mg@hplabs.HP.COM
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Lines: 26
Approved: taylor@hplabs
Summary: Leading witness's evidence could be flawed
Reference: <472@hplabsc.UUCP>


This article is from munnari!cidam.rmit.oz!mg@hplabs.HP.COM (Mike A. Gigante)
 and was received on Sun Jul 27 17:44:48 1986
 
In article <497@hplabsc.UUCP>, taylor@hplabsc.UUCP (Dave Taylor) writes:
> 
> 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
>
>[...]  Let's face it, we're all human and we all have biases.  [...]

This one sentence (admittedly, removed from it's context), serves to illustrate
one problem I perceive here. We *are* only human, and our code sometimes 
reflects this :-)  Unless it has been *proven* that the machine/program is
*completely error free*, I think that a miscarriage of justice is a definate
possibility if a machine/program is used as incriminating evidence.

Honestly, would like like someone else's code to decide your fate?

Taken to it's extreme, you could have duelling debug sessions in a court
room :-) (Hah! but I just fixed that bug 2 minutes ago!)

				-- Mike

[a good point...indeed a very good point - worth a 'real' followup...-- Dave]