4 ms·
While this may lead to more transparent technology use in the justice system, a more realistic outcome is that everyone accused of any crime where a technology
by chadlavi 6y ago
While this may lead to more transparent technology use in the justice system, a more realistic outcome is that everyone accused of any crime where a technology was used in the process of determining guilt (which could get quite picayune; did the prosecutor's office use Excel? Is that something the defendant could demand to check the source code on?) will use this as a way to slow-roll the process indefinitely.
- tehwebguy 6y agoWell sure, if they rely entirely on Excel to generate and spit out an expert witness testimony. If that ever happens it will be extremely important to understand what’s happening under the hood in Excel.
- bagacrap 6y agoDefinitely if an excel macro determined my guilt based on a dataset, I would like to be able to read that macro.
- abfan1127 6y agoor at least double check the math.
- Spivak 6y agoYes? I mean the intimate details of how cell networks work have been the difference between guilty and not before when the only evidence is some black-box report generated by AT&T that seems more accurate than is actually guaranteed. This wouldn’t be necessary if the expert on the stand was a geneticist who ran the test. But when the expert literally is the software you can’t really cross-examine the company’s sales rep.
- Jolter 6y agoSince when do defendants have an interest in prolonged sentencing processes? For major crimes like this, they are in jail with restrictions. They would get better treatment once sentenced, in the prison system, wouldn’t they?