“In a spate of wishful thinking, an American legal philosopher, Ronald Dworkin, once invented an imaginary but ideal judge, named Hercules, who had complete knowledge of every case ever decided. Hercules saw the law as a seamless web of past precedents, and could come to one right answer to decide any particular case. Of course, no actual judge possesses such a supernatural reasoning ability. Recently, though, scholars have built electronic maps of legal precedents that offer at least some semblance of the Herculean panorama of law.”
*(The Economist, Computer Models %26amp; Jurisprudence, 8/25/05)
-I am curious to hear your opinions/feedback on the technological advances being made towards a statistical modeling of Dworkin’s “Hercules Jurisprudence”. Will this computerized system truly be fair/effective in assessing law cases, or is it simply a waste of time and effort?....|||There would have to be way more advancements in the field of artificial intelligence before a computer could even begin to be thought of as a replacement for a judge. Computer models and maps of legal precedent will not do. That's because there is no single right answer to most cases. It's always a weighing and balancing of various factors -- stare decisis, the boundaries of state involvement in the lives of people and with one another, economic factors, and yes, sometimes political too. Even if there was exactly a case on point, there is no guarantee that it will be decided that way 100% of the time today. Is that a good thing? Think back to all the seminal cases in various areas of the law -- would they have come out that way if it was a computer that decided them?
By the way, are you a law student?|||Might as well be. In todays time of mandatory sentences judges certainly are not judges anymore.
A machine could easily do what a judge does now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment