5 ms·

> You don't want "impartial" judgements Why? Your argument seems to be that without empathy in the legal system people would go to prison for stealing a loaf

by Veedrac 10y ago

> You don't want "impartial" judgements Why? Your argument seems to be that without empathy in the legal system people would go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread. That doesn't really make sense, My argument would be that with empathy in the legal system, unlikeable people from the wrong minority with an unhappy judge would go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread. There is so much disproportionality in the legal system that has arisen from gut feelings and a lack of objectivity - not just obvious things like racism but even just some crimes having far harsher punishments than more damaging ones because they're easier to get angry about. Formalizing things like reduced punishments for crimes with lower damage (aka. bread is cheap) or born of necessity (aka. the thief can't afford food) seems so trivial a concern in comparison. Obviously formalizing more complex issues is also hard, but the bar to beat isn't set particularly high.

hackuser 10y ago
I agree there are many problems with injecting human judgment, but also many benefits. It's not all or nothing. We don't want to simply replace one set of problems with another.
dogma1138 10y ago
How would you formalize it without it being exploitable? And what about other things, how about a father who killed the man who raped his daughter? Or a woman who hired some one to kill her abusive partner? How would you estimate damage? it's easy to do with itemised goods but how do you estimate the damage of being abused, raped, how do you put a value on someone's life? These are things we haven't even managed to fully grasp and defined yet, and you want us to define that to a computer? How are you going to form a legal argument that can lead to a new precedent to a computer?
- mangeletti 10y ago
  Certainly not with Ethereum :) Of course what I just said is kind of comical at first glance, but in all honesty, and to absolutely agree with and add to your point, the exploits related to Ethereum are great examples of how something seemingly infallible that is set in stone can easily turn out to be an Achilles' heel, which then, just like in the case of Ethereum, requires human intervention, bringing it back full circle. Also, to add to this, as @hackuser mentions[1], the system, even if set perfectly in stone, will still be based on somebody's biases. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462653
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    >Also, to add to this, as @hackuser mentions[1], the system, even if set perfectly in stone, will still be based on somebody's biases. Yes but these are going to be "fixed" biases, where a judge's ones are not. A judge can be argued with, it can be presented with the case in a different manner, it can be given precedents which might be relevant for this case because of it's unique circumstances. Overall a system that has a fixed set of "biases" is still "impartial" it's just utterly static, it would have it's penal code and some large list of if this then that's in regards to how to execute it's judgment. So while it might have if (crime.type = theft && crime.subject = food && crime.offender = parent.single) { return show.sympathy(); } you won't be able to change that by arguing for or against it and that's what our legal system is based on. This is why we have defense and prosecution rather than simply running the crime through some flow chart to figure out if you are guilty and if so what the punishment should be.
- Veedrac 10y ago
  Laws are already exploitable, and frequently exploited. If you're wondering what to do when the computer gives erroneous results, obviously you'd still have human oversight with the ability to overrule with good cause. > And what about other things, how about a father who killed the man who raped his daughter? Or a woman who hired some one to kill her abusive partner? I don't get what makes these particularly hard questions. You have a motive and a crime. There will be some prior on how much a motive adjusts for a crime. Obviously there is no "correct" answer, as it's a philosophical question. The important thing is that it's a decision made consistently and detached from the specific biases of each case. > How would you estimate damage? it's easy to do with itemised goods but how do you estimate the damage of being abused, raped, how do you put a value on someone's life? People already put a value on people's lives. The problem isn't that such a value is inherent to law, it's that it's applied neither consistently or reasonably. A simple approach to this is to decide upon some general conversions - how much a life is worth, for instance - and when it comes to specific instantiations one can relatively straightforwardly make reasoned deductions about how much suffering a given instantiation of a crime (aka. a specific class of rape) causes in the general case. This would be born of largely of research into the long-term quality-of-life effects of these events, plus a heuristic measure of how much short-term suffering is inflicted. The difference here isn't that this deduction has to be done. The difference is that this deduction won't change because you're black, because you're rich or because your judge had a leg cramp when they woke up. The difference is that rather than being based on how bad a crime sounds, there is at least some attempt to measure the impact of the damage done. > How are you going to form a legal argument that can lead to a new precedent to a computer? Most crimes that we should care about are uninteresting crimes. These are things like violence, property crime and drug offenses and make the vast majority of crimes. New precedents can still be handled on a case-by-case basis (albeit with more regularization to fit the prescribed bases for punishment).
TheCoelacanth 10y ago
You do have a good point that certain people receive unjustly harsh sentences when judicial discretion is allowed, and that's part of why the concept of mandatory minimum sentences came about. In practice, though, it has resulted in unjustly harsh sentences for everyone.

by Veedrac 10y ago

hackuser 10y ago

I agree there are many problems with injecting human judgment, but also many benefits. It's not all or nothing. We don't want to simply replace one set of problems with another.

dogma1138 10y ago

How would you formalize it without it being exploitable? And what about other things, how about a father who killed the man who raped his daughter? Or a woman who hired some one to kill her abusive partner? How would you estimate damage? it's easy to do with itemised goods but how do you estimate the damage of being abused, raped, how do you put a value on someone's life? These are things we haven't even managed to fully grasp and defined yet, and you want us to define that to a computer? How are you going to form a legal argument that can lead to a new precedent to a computer?

mangeletti 10y ago
Certainly not with Ethereum :) Of course what I just said is kind of comical at first glance, but in all honesty, and to absolutely agree with and add to your point, the exploits related to Ethereum are great examples of how something seemingly infallible that is set in stone can easily turn out to be an Achilles' heel, which then, just like in the case of Ethereum, requires human intervention, bringing it back full circle. Also, to add to this, as @hackuser mentions[1], the system, even if set perfectly in stone, will still be based on somebody's biases. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462653 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12462653
- dogma1138 10y ago
  >Also, to add to this, as @hackuser mentions[1], the system, even if set perfectly in stone, will still be based on somebody's biases. Yes but these are going to be "fixed" biases, where a judge's ones are not. A judge can be argued with, it can be presented with the case in a different manner, it can be given precedents which might be relevant for this case because of it's unique circumstances. Overall a system that has a fixed set of "biases" is still "impartial" it's just utterly static, it would have it's penal code and some large list of if this then that's in regards to how to execute it's judgment. So while it might have if (crime.type = theft && crime.subject = food && crime.offender = parent.single) { return show.sympathy(); } you won't be able to change that by arguing for or against it and that's what our legal system is based on. This is why we have defense and prosecution rather than simply running the crime through some flow chart to figure out if you are guilty and if so what the punishment should be.
Veedrac 10y ago
Laws are already exploitable, and frequently exploited. If you're wondering what to do when the computer gives erroneous results, obviously you'd still have human oversight with the ability to overrule with good cause. > And what about other things, how about a father who killed the man who raped his daughter? Or a woman who hired some one to kill her abusive partner? I don't get what makes these particularly hard questions. You have a motive and a crime. There will be some prior on how much a motive adjusts for a crime. Obviously there is no "correct" answer, as it's a philosophical question. The important thing is that it's a decision made consistently and detached from the specific biases of each case. > How would you estimate damage? it's easy to do with itemised goods but how do you estimate the damage of being abused, raped, how do you put a value on someone's life? People already put a value on people's lives. The problem isn't that such a value is inherent to law, it's that it's applied neither consistently or reasonably. A simple approach to this is to decide upon some general conversions - how much a life is worth, for instance - and when it comes to specific instantiations one can relatively straightforwardly make reasoned deductions about how much suffering a given instantiation of a crime (aka. a specific class of rape) causes in the general case. This would be born of largely of research into the long-term quality-of-life effects of these events, plus a heuristic measure of how much short-term suffering is inflicted. The difference here isn't that this deduction has to be done. The difference is that this deduction won't change because you're black, because you're rich or because your judge had a leg cramp when they woke up. The difference is that rather than being based on how bad a crime sounds, there is at least some attempt to measure the impact of the damage done. > How are you going to form a legal argument that can lead to a new precedent to a computer? Most crimes that we should care about are uninteresting crimes. These are things like violence, property crime and drug offenses and make the vast majority of crimes. New precedents can still be handled on a case-by-case basis (albeit with more regularization to fit the prescribed bases for punishment).

TheCoelacanth 10y ago

You do have a good point that certain people receive unjustly harsh sentences when judicial discretion is allowed, and that's part of why the concept of mandatory minimum sentences came about. In practice, though, it has resulted in unjustly harsh sentences for everyone.