3 ms·
I can actually see a use case in earmarking court decisions for review that are far off from what may have been expected. Handing over the decision altogether,
by masswerk 5y ago
I can actually see a use case in earmarking court decisions for review that are far off from what may have been expected.
Handing over the decision altogether, however, is like handing justice over to a theatrical magician ("The Great Fully Automated Barnum Court"): it's commercially incentivized, you may not know the trick, because it's a trade secret, and it's not the real thing, either. (But, exactly because of this, people will fall for it.) Also, judgement is very much about discerning correlation from causation, so correlation based data may not be the best foundation, to begin with.
- noduerme 5y agoThis reminded me of something I read, and I can't recall whether it was in Argentina under the junta, or in North Korea, or in the USSR ...but the gist was that people sentenced for minor crimes or for irritating the state were essentially assigned random sentences and punishments, divorced from or even absurdly light or harsh relative to their suppose crimes, as a way of terrorizing the population. Or maybe I'm thinking of a Kafka story, or Dostoevsky's mock execution. Or 1984. Shit. I've lost it. [edit] Might have been from the Killing Fields. Wow, this is really dredging up a lot of wonderful historical references...
- crooked-v 5y agoDon't forget the film Brazil, where a bug-induced misprinted warrant leads to an obviously wrong person being arrested and then interrogated to death, because how could the machine be wrong?