but the system needs it's butt kicked in hard and reminded not only does actual innocence MATTER IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE RULES AND RIGHTS BS that is what higher court spend far too much time and efforts now
and where the WOKE movements are very important to not pack kids off to prison like the nut con's demand christo-facist is a real common path to political office and they demand CONvictions to get CONvicts to pack prisons
they pretend the law and order regime has no victims it does they just refuse to see them
that is where the RWNJ ANTI-WOKE B S IS TRAGIC there is and will be strong bias in the so called but lacking of justice system anti-woke nuts just reinforce the systems evil dark side and worse are so damm proud of themselves for doing it damm nut con on courts damm the rump for putting the worse ones there
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 03-20-2024).]
but the system needs it's butt kicked in hard and reminded not only does actual innocence MATTER IT IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THEN THE RULES AND RIGHTS BS that is what higher court spend far too much time and efforts now
Can it? Absolutely. Would it be Constitutional? Absolutely not! Should it be? 100% no...
Already though, there are several AI tools out there that are being used for judges to handle sentencing. All things aside of course... you know a certain crime in a certain state, and even in a certain county has a defined recourse / sentence structure. So, within those confines, there are programs that take into consideration the likelihood of a convict to recommit an act, and it provides recommended sentencing. This happens for both bench trials as well as jury-led trials.
UNFORTUNATELY... there was a case just a couple of years ago where a kid was sentenced based on the recommendations of an AI-based system that the judge used. The kid repealed, and it went all the way to the state Supreme Court (I forget the state, but I can look it up if you really want me to). The state supreme court ruled it was 100% constitutional. I find this appalling. I haven't done a whole lot of research, but I'm thinking I probably cannot find anywhere that it's specifically unconstitutional, but it really depends on me reading and re-reading Article three of the Constitution, as well as the 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendment, as well as any subsequent amendments that address the judiciary process... and probably even the 9th amendment too could come into this.
For me personally, I find it absolutely horrifying.
One of the key benefits of having a HUMAN as a judge, is considering the impassioned pleas of the defendant, the defense attorney, and the character witnesses. Because an individual might fit into a unique age group, or group of individual types that might be more likely to recommit a crime, does not (in my mind) give the Judiciary the right to take away the "right of conscious" from the judge. Ultimately, the judge is still making the decision... but he/she may be swayed by the trust this individual has in the results of the AI model.
Like... I cannot express enough how much it horrifies me. Regardless... precedent is set when a court rules that such a thing is permissible; so even absent any laws to the contrary (that explicitly allow such actions), AI is now firmly allowed in that state (again, I forget the state), which means it may also be used as a "persuasive authority" in other states, even if not officially binding.
I just don't like it at all. For what it's worth, my career the last two to three years has all been in AI. I think it's great, but I also think it can be improperly applied. And this is a place where human authenticity, for all it's failure, is still much better than one that is based purely on "logic" (which is only as good as the learning model it's built from).
quote
Originally posted by BingB: The jury could never be replaced by AI.
Judges maybe, but it would be very difficult. The law changes as society changes. Not sure how AI would deal with that.
Totally doable through simple knowledge graph completion, with model retraining through the orchestrator, which updates embeddings which result in an updated vector database to update / change the weights and tokens in the matrix. All of that is to say it learns from new information, and builds inferences to new concepts and ideas which update the knowledge graph. It's not a hard problem, and totally doable.
The question isn't IF it can be done, it's IF it should be done... and I sincerely mean that. Our judicial system, as imperfect as it may be, is the best most human thing we have in society. You destroy that, and you've destroyed the very fabric of what makes this all work.
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-22-2024).]
Totally doable through simple knowledge graph completion, with model retraining through the orchestrator, which updates embeddings which result in an updated vector database to update / change the weights and tokens in the matrix. All of that is to say it learns from new information, and builds inferences to new concepts and ideas which update the knowledge graph. It's not a hard problem, and totally doable.
The question isn't IF it can be done, it's IF it should be done... and I sincerely mean that. Our judicial system, as imperfect as it may be, is the best most human thing we have in society. You destroy that, and you've destroyed the very fabric of what makes this all work.
Interesting position. I am kind of the opposite. I would say that if it can be done then it should be done. "Human error" is the biggest problem we have today. Most people screaming about problems with "the police" are usually actually screaming about the actions of bad individuals who happen to be police. I am sure judges are the same way. When you hear a story about a crazy decision the problem is more likely to be a crazy individual judge instead of "the system".
I understand the theory of AI, but not near enough about the specifics to know what its limits are.
And there is that pesky ' jury of your peers' thingy.....
Yes, that thankfully is rooted firmly in the constitution, unfortunately... there is no such language that clearly counters the use of AI in other aspects of law... and that concerns me. Another wild take though, is the point at which AI or an AI-based entity is considered a "person." I forget which European country it is... but they ethically considered an AI entity a person. To that extent, if you get the right Supreme Court (should it work it's way up that high), you could conceivably have a situation in the distant future where the jury is in fact "AI based."
But more immediate... what's to stop a jury from being allowed to use an AI system in the deliberation room? We have a "fair and impartial" jury... but if it can be argued that an AI system (for reasoning... lol, God help us) provides for a more fair and impartial evaluation of the facts... then it also could in effect become something that improperly sways the jury by means of actually trying to help it.
Originally posted by BingB: ... The law changes as society changes.
Are you referring to the Constitution? Or just "courts" in general? You know it takes a monumental, concerted effort to change the constitution - by design. Right? There's a reason for that - in spite of all the "end-around" regulations, and E.O.s that "agencies and presidents" try to pass off.
To directly answer the question... AI is a misnomer. It is not "intelligent". It does not think. At all. All it does is compile facts. Hard facts. LOTS AND LOTS of hard facts.
But it has no "judgement", per se. It can (and will) overlook subtleties and nuances that a person can detect. (AI can't, to my knowledge, detect tone of voice, nervousness, or even sarcasm.) It seems like it would be difficult to present raw facts in a format that could be accurately judged. It also seems that it would be too easy to skew the information, to one's own purpose.
So... "No". Which doesn't mean that someone won't try.
Are you referring to the Constitution? Or just "courts" in general? You know it takes a monumental, concerted effort to change the constitution - by design. Right? There's a reason for that - in spite of all the "end-around" regulations, and E.O.s that "agencies and presidents" try to pass off.
It is not a "living document" as some wish.
The law changes constantly based on the courts interpretation.
The Constitution did not change when same sex couple were given equal protection under the law or when a womans right to abortion was recently limited.
The law changes constantly based on the courts interpretation.
Well... the interpretation certainly changes. Personally, I think there are too many "laws" and too many interpretations. Too many interpretations that would tend to "whittle away" at the Constitution, bit by bit. And yeah... it goes both ways, depending upon your social outlook.
To directly answer the question... AI is a misnomer. It is not "intelligent". It does not think. At all. All it does is compile facts. Hard facts. LOTS AND LOTS of hard facts.
But it has no "judgement", per se. It can (and will) overlook subtleties and nuances that a person can detect. (AI can't, to my knowledge, detect tone of voice, nervousness, or even sarcasm.) It seems like it would be difficult to present raw facts in a format that could be accurately judged. It also seems that it would be too easy to skew the information, to one's own purpose.
So... "No". Which doesn't mean that someone won't try.
AI can certainly be trained to discern tone of voice, nervousness, and sarcasm... using anything from Computer Vision to identify facial traits, to audio analysis to identify the other things. But as you say... judgement is the issue. AI doesn't so much miss subtleties (there are masking routines to ensure rule integrity is respected), but it has trouble making humanistic and logical inferences. Things that require somewhat "illogical thought" in order to properly reason (as a human) is not something that AI can necessarily do, and likely will never be able to do well.
Originally posted by BingB: The law changes constantly based on the courts interpretation.
The Constitution did not change when same sex couple were given equal protection under the law or when a womans right to abortion was recently limited.
Women have never had a 'right' to have an abortion.
Women have never had a 'right' to have an abortion.
You need to do a little research. In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.
Well... the interpretation certainly changes. Personally, I think there are too many "laws" and too many interpretations. Too many interpretations that would tend to "whittle away" at the Constitution, bit by bit. And yeah... it goes both ways, depending upon your social outlook.
It is impossible to write a law so specific that it covers every possible set of facts. The Courts are the ones who fill in the blanks and decide how the laws are to be interpreted.
You need to do a little research. In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.
I would argue that Rights come to a person from God. Any person can kill another, its a choice. God also commands "Thou shalt not kill".
[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 03-23-2024).]
In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.
In 2022 the court corrected that error. "We hold," he (Justice Alito) wrote (for the majority), that "the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion."
"To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion. "
Accordingly, there was never any such "right" to abortion specified or implied in the Constitution.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-23-2024).]
You need to do a little research. In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.
"the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion" NO... this is completely incorrect. They stated that a woman had the right to PRIVACY. And by virtue of that, allowed women in some cases to make a decision (privately) what was best for them. It was very clear in that it gave no absolute right to an abortion (this is literally in the decision). There was no such statement that said "the constitution protected a woman's right to have an abortion." The entire decision ultimately led to the passage of the Privacy Act of 1974, which is the grandfather to our modern electronic privacy rights (and even a foundational component of Europe's GDPR, and similar laws here like CCPA, etc.
It was widely heralded by many Democrat constitutional lawyers, including Archibald Cox, that it was a very poor decision, and mixed two completely dissimilar concepts (the right to privacy, and the right to essentially murder a fetus). It was WELL known, for a very long time, that this was a very poorly made court decision that was based almost entirely on activism, rather than constitutional logic.
To that point, Democrats have known for many, MANY decades that this law would eventually be overturned if and when the right appeal and conditions were met. The constitution makes no law for or against abortion, and in absence of a Federal law, it's entirely up to the states. Democrats had 50 years to pass a law... even just the most basic law to ensure or better define the conditions of an abortion... and they never bothered to. They just used it as a political carrot... always threatening it would be repealed.
It was WELL known, for a very long time, that this was a very poorly made court decision that was based almost entirely on activism, rather than constitutional logic.
Just a casual reading of Justice Blackmun''s writing for the majority in Roe v Wade exposes how wholly contrived the opinion was.
Justice Blackmun went to considerable length to discuss the medical history of abortion, the views of Persians, Greeks and Romans, and quoted two versions of the Hippocratic oath and early English authors dating to the 13th century.
What he DID NOT quote was any provision in the Constitution that protects abortion rights.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 03-23-2024).]
Originally posted by williegoat: Could the the judiciary be replaced by AI?
Which AI would you want to replace it with ? AI is just programed by the programmers agenda. Hopefully you know about AI changing skin color on historical figures.
quote
Originally posted by BingB: You need to do a little research. In 1973 the SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution protected a womans right to have an abortion until the third trimester. No state could make a law to violate that right.
Tis you who needs to do some research. The US Constitution protected a woman's right to privacy, as mentioned.
A woman's right to have a abortion ? What about the father of the fetus.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It was WELL known, for a very long time, that this was a very poorly made court decision that was based almost entirely on activism, rather than constitutional logic.
Correct ! Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg (the most left leaning Chief Justice I have ever known), held a lecture at University of Chicago Law School (Illoinois being a most left leaning State).
I would argue that Rights come to a person from God.
You would be wrong.
If rights came from God then everyone everywhere on earth would have the same rights. But they don't. A persons rights depend totally on the government jurisdiction over them.
I am not argueing that Roe V wade was the correct decision.
All I am saying is that the ruling prevented any law that would restrict a woman's right to an abortion up to the third trimester. That means her right to an abortion was protected.
If you claim he right to an abortion was NOT protected then tell me what a government agency could have done under Roe to prevent a woman from having an abortion.
If rights came from God then everyone everywhere on earth would have the same rights. But they don't. A persons rights depend totally on the government jurisdiction over them.
You are wrong. All men are endowed by their creator with rights. Governments are not powerful enough to bestow rights, they can only infringe on them.
You are wrong. All men are endowed by their creator with rights. Governments are not powerful enough to bestow rights, they can only infringe on them.
Then the United States government is clearly more powerful than your god. Millions of people lived here as slaves until the government set them free. The "rights" granted to them by your god was completely worthless.
Then the United States government is clearly more powerful than your god. Millions of people lived here as slaves until the government set them free. The "rights" granted to them by your god was completely worthless.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Governments are not powerful enough to bestow rights, they can only infringe on them.
This is why discussion with you is futile. I have already answered your questions. There is no reason for me to repeat myself. You are incapable of learning.
I have explained here many times that one of God's greatest gifts is freedom, which includes the freedom to do evil. Without that gift, we would be no different from ants and bees, that is to say socialists.
I have explained here many times that one of God's greatest gifts is freedom,.
And I have explained that his "gift" was useless in the United States for millions of people who were born into chattel slavery. Their right to freedom had nothing to do with any god. The government was the one who gave them their freedom.
And I have explained that his "gift" was useless in the United States for millions of people who were born into chattel slavery. Their right to freedom had nothing to do with any god. The government was the one who gave them their freedom.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat:
Governments are not powerful enough to bestow rights, they can only infringe on them.
quote
Originally posted by williegoat: This is why discussion with you is futile. I have already answered your questions. There is no reason for me to repeat myself. You are incapable of learning.
If rights came from God then everyone everywhere on earth would have the same rights.
So you've lost the abortion discussion, and now shifting to this.
Per the United States Constitution, our inalienable rights come from three sources:
GOD NATURE MAN
... period. Regardless what you believe, want to believe, or want it to be, this is fact in so far as this is what the U.S. Constitution states, and therefore, it is the law of the land in the United States. Why are you comparing other countries?
quote
Originally posted by BingB:
Then the United States government is clearly more powerful than your god. Millions of people lived here as slaves until the government set them free. The "rights" granted to them by your god was completely worthless.
"...until the government set them free"
Unbelievable. I question whether you actually think this way, or if you're just being a troll.
The government, in the United States, is derived by the people in the concept of a representative Republic. The "government" doesn't do anything, it's TOLD what to do. This is ALSO fact.
Years ago, I had a friend who's car had been stolen and found just a few blocks away. The cops speculated that some punks used it for a drive-by, then abandoned it.
By Fred's logic, some gangsters gave my friend a car.
Per the United States Constitution, our inalienable rights come from three sources:
GOD NATURE MAN
... period. Regardless what you believe, want to believe, or want it to be, this is fact in so far as this is what the U.S. Constitution states, and therefore, it is the law of the land in the United States. Why are you comparing other countries?
God is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Try reading it yourself instead of just blindly parroting right-wing propaganda.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: "...until the government set them free"
Unbelievable. I question whether you actually think this way, or if you're just being a troll.
The government, in the United States, is derived by the people in the concept of a representative Republic. The "government" doesn't do anything, it's TOLD what to do. This is ALSO fact.
Okee Dokee. The PEOPLE told the government to end slavery. I agree with you on that.
But it still proves my point that people rights do not come from god.
[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 03-24-2024).]
If rights came from God then everyone everywhere on earth would have the same rights. But they don't. A persons rights depend totally on the government jurisdiction over them.
We do all have the same rights, but government stifles them. America's Constitution is written to place restrictions on Government to protect the rights that all humans are born to.
Then the United States government is clearly more powerful than your god. Millions of people lived here as slaves until the government set them free. The "rights" granted to them by your god was completely worthless.
