Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
No. It wouldn't. Law is a human creation intended to be for humans and adjudicated by humans.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
So are computers.
|
The law and computers are human creations. Each is created differently to serve different functions. When we create computers that can demonstrate and apply the concepts of justice tempered by mercy and compassion in their manipulation of data, then it may be possible to do as you assert. Try as I might, however, I haven’t found an app for that yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
Inherent in its creation is the use and consideration of human emotions (bias, mercy, prejudice, compassion, etc.). To then remove emotion from the application of such a creation is to create a systematic flaw.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
I'm not seeing any evidence of the removal of human flaws creating a more flawed system.
|
Emotions are inherent in creation and application of human law and have been since the inception of law within society. Accordingly, as currently written, there is a necessary emotional variable in the equation used to evaluate evidence, pass judgment as to compliance and determine appropriate sentencing under the laws that govern us. Further, I accept it as true that a processer of information unable to adequately manipulate all the necessary variables of a system – such as computers attempting to compute and apply “justice” – will be inherently flawed and consistently render unreliable/incorrect results. I would have thought someone as rational as you could see such an obvious systemic flaw.
If, however, you consider our corporate humanity to be a flaw that must be removed from the creation and application of our legal system, the only way to do so is to cede the right to govern ourselves (
i.e. the right to create the laws which will apply to us) to mechanical devices that, at their core, simply store, retrieve and manipulate compilable data. Again, you may wish to surrender to the coming computer overlords. I do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
The resultant and inherently inhuman application of such laws would lead to attrocities and the "logical/rational" choices in which a mechanical being would make no attempt to save a drowning child.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
WTF?!?!??! Where are you getting this from?
|
From the simple fact, as highlighted by CRed above that "being human" involves more than weighing odds and manipulating equations. The concepts of “right” and “wrong” are not mathematical equations based on data retrieval. A process incapable of understanding such concepts will inevitably make choices resulting in specific cases of inhumanity – such as giving more weight to the probability of survival then any other factor when choosing between saving the life of an adult over that of a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeRedskin
For good or ill, the law is our creation. It is meant for us and for us to apply it. I for one, chose not to surrender the adjudication of my actions to a highly sophisticated calculator. Accordingly, I will ask no one else to either.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedskinRat
It's called progress.
|
I am sure you will be happy with the Borg assimilation.