I would not give AI the justice management.
I wouldn't trust it, even if human justice system is imperfect too!

In time when AI will be able to run justice, people's intelligency will be augmented artificially too, and court duel will go to the next level.
Ideally everybody shall be judge to himself

Yes...though i think this would be impossible if humans continue to remain citezens to their particular corporation (country) that owns every action they make...

The biggest step needed is the creation of soverighn communities that do not abide by a national governments laws, yet exist legally as a seperate entity from the country, similar to how the vatican city and city of london are there own countries. 

Ounce these communities are created, they can run themselves, having the ability to harness free energy, have voluntarism in place instead of taxes, clean water systems (flouride free water supply), potentially free housing for all citizens (with regulTions in place pertaining to who can become a citezen)  and AI to run their courts. 
I believe we are moving towards a future where humans will be free of all debts and can create as our hearts desire. 

We are truly moving toward that, and it is beatiful.

....needless to say.....

![](https://s14.postimg.org/t0ltgajk1/images.png)

Not sure i'm 100% sold but i like the conversation. Criminal justice is a joke right now.

Decentro thinks AI can indeed be a great governor - programmed to be fair.

The biggest problem now days is that there are TOO MANY laws.   Winston Churchill is supposed to have said “If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”

We passed that point a long time ago.  I don't think anyone RESPECTS the law or congress (those who make it).  People fear the law. They fear "the man" but there is no respect involved.  In fact they mock it and find it disgusting.

"We have the best law that money can buy" is the truth.  The rich are treated differently than the poor.  In fact we do NOT have a rule of law in the classic sense.  We have  a rule of man. (how much will it cost me to buy my way out of this one? ) or how many politicians does the billionaire have in his 'stable'.

Trump said...

Awesome. 

I've for a long time hated the idea of jury deliberation. As you say, a strong willed juror can influence others. If they can all be influenced by each other, you dampen the point of having multiple decision outputs. It's closer to just having one person. Or possibly worse since someone who is good at talking people into things might be bad at judging accurately.

I think an easy improvement that's available to us already is that each juror/judge decides on their own, with no communication at all with the others, and then they're rewarded for deciding in the majority. (Since you have no idea what the others will do, judging what seems to be true is your only strategy.)

Moving forward, you're probably right that AI can do a better job. 

You could have prediction markets on Augur that trade shares on the outcome, and any time the final prediction on Augur is different than what the AI decides, you could consider that cause for a retrial, perhaps with a different AI system. 

Or maybe there should be an oracle of humans (using blockchain stuff obv) who decide on the case first, and then AI systems go after that, since they aren't biased by what the humans already decided.

Another aspect of this that I'm looking forward to (when we move beyond using punishment to resolve crimes) is decentralization of *how we deal with* the criminals. If there's ambiguity over whether they did something, all that's really important is that everybody has access to all the info. You'd know that the oracle decided this, Augur predicted that, the AI said this. (You can watch the trial if you want.) And you can take it all for whatever it's worth to you. And others will do the same, and some type of consensus will emerge. We get there without a black and white decision issued by a central party.

Nice work! Would you be willing to discuss this on a podcast in the near future? AI, the singularity at the blockchain have come up already, and this fits in real well.... 10 minutes is all that's really required (more if it goes well and you're enjoying yourself), a pre-recorded call is fine, no call ins. I'm re-working the program to promote the Steemit platform, and trying to use mostly Steemers as guests in the future (including linking to your profile, and repeating it on the air name) .. Any reply appreciated.
Best, Guy http://www.AREA51.fm

The Jury system is very specific to the US 'tradition' (It reminds me the great movie "12 angry men"), we don't have a similar system in France (where it is one or several judges depending on the case who make the final decision).

Beyond technology and AI, one key issue for me is that the amount of money one can put on the table to defend oneself and hire good lawyers will have a real impact on the outcome of any judgement. What is true, what is right should not depend on the money.

You can dream up all the technology you want to tweak this and that particular aspect of the justice system, but it won't ever get inplemented for the purpose of service justice. The justice system is a monopoly, whose incentices are in line with thos of monopolies: charge more, blame the customer, provide as little as possible. Until there is free market competition in this area, none of your idea will see the light. However, they are good ideas, which any free market justice provider would certainly try and adopt as a way to provide better, cheaper, more efficient justice than its competitors.
You can find more information on how a free market justice system would function in Robert Murphy recent Mises video, and in many of Murray Rothbard's writings.

You said, "One, end trial by your peers and replace them with a council of judges to have better representation from those who understand the law."
.
My Questions: 
.
1. If Council of the judges is going to give decision, how many judges would you allocate for each case?

Outsourcing our responsibilities in life to deal with our problems and other people, is never a wise solution. That is called abdication of personal responsibility. No matter how flawed we may be, may have been, or will be, that is a signal to work on ourselves more, not to further create a dependence on some created form of management of our lives, be it AI or government.

We need to grow up, take personal responsibility, raise ourselves up to higher standards of thinking and behavior and develop more self-control. 

Outsourcing responsibility, thinking and control over our lives is never the answer. That's how government came into the picture: abdicating personal responsibility over our own lives, to take control of things for us rather than us do it ourselves.

Peace.

@calaber24p

The future will most likely not have any primitive concepts such as judges, priests and politicians. All laws and crime exist because of inefficiencies in current technologies.

PEERS! how dare you. seriously, though, what about jury nullification? maybe scrap the entire government and replace it with an AI. that'll never go wrong. has anyone seen tay? how about requiring a minimum level of competence to get any thing above a minimum income of healthy food, water and shelter. that way a larger percentage of the populace will be able to think and take up the responsibilities that go along with rights.

What is legal is straightforward, but what is 'just' is fluid and should be based upon changes and nuances in society.   As AI lacks empathy and sympathy, it then lacks a certain element necessary.  

I like a jury of peers.  But think isolating them would be good if they had access to legal council to help them through the process but with limits to not allow influence by council.  (that might be a great place to implement AI)

I also think there should be 3 judges to a case.  They must confer and make majority decisions.  That takes away the chances of one bad/biased judge having too much power or influence on the outcome.  

The other aspect I like in our system is the presumption of innocence and the state must prove guilt.  Many countries have the opposite, whereas the accused must prove their innocence.   I like our default stance.

I think a jury of our peers, as it was intended originally, where our peers are people who actually know us and can provide in depth perception into the matter of our character, was a great idea.

I also believe in jury nullification where not only is the defendant on trial but the very law itself. If the jury believes the law to be out of line, they can vote not guilty even if the defendant is clearly guilty of breaking that law, simply because they do not believe in the law.

I love your thoughts, and that you have this opportunity to share them, but I've got to disagree with you on this one. 

## What we need is a restoration of an informed populace that can apply the original judicial system intentions, which included a jury of our real peers and the option of jury nullification.

I would rather have my actual peers determine if the law is valid, and if so, if I'm guilty of it, rather than an artificial intelligence.

Hi @calaber
I like your idea of the judges being in a different location than the witnesses to prevent biased judgement based on race etc.
I also like the idea of AI doing the judging. I just think it would be difficult to put the evidence into a data base for the AI to judge, but I am sure the IT guys will find a practical way. The problem I see is that to judge the facts, certain algorithms will have to be written that give specific weights to certain criteria to serve as mitigating or aggravating circumstances. If people know these algorithms they will also be able to influence the judgement

>  For starters, I don’t believe we should be judged by a jury of our peers, but rather a council that knows and has studied the law.

You realize that juries don't interpret the law, right.  Judges do.  Juries are deciders of fact.  The only thing a jury decides is "did he really do it?"  whether or not "it" is legal is a question for the judge (who answers it by giving jury instructions."

I think this is an idea that has some merit.  But there are also a lot of problems  that you really never get into.  To be honest, i think your case would be far stronger for getting rid of judges and replacing them with AI.   

For example, can an AI understand human emotions?  The emotions and feelings of a defendant (his state of mind if you will) are very important to deciding innocence or guilt in many cases where something like self-defense or alleged consent is involved.

Also, the human touch (call it empathy, emotion, instinct whatever) is very important in weighing the credibility of testimony.  What happens if a police officer says one thing, but the accused (or a witness) says another.  Is the computer program (presumably coded by civil servants) going to take the word of a police officer as more credible than the accused by default?  

With a computer as the judge of fact, youre not getting rid of bias, youre just kicking the bias can down the road.  Because some government employed programmer has to decide how much weight the computer gives to what evidence.

I have participated in the MOOC AI from Stanford. At the moment I would not trust AI to be able to make the final judgement in court but it could be a potential aid. However AI heavily depends on the state space that it draws it conclusions from, what is not in the state space it cannot see. This will limit their judgement and they cannot deal with totally unforeseen items. @steempowerwhale 🐳
[🌞 upvoting your lifetime dreams!]( https://steemit.com/introduceyourself/@steempowerwhale/i-am-steempowerwhale-and-i-am-here-to-upvote-your-lifetime-dreams)

Fascinating and great ideas about changing the process to remove biases and using AI.  I think AI can certainly help make the process more data-driven and efficient.   There do seem to be a lot of ways to improve the system.   There are practical considerations about data input and evidence because anything can be faked or manufactured.    

Also the main benefit of a jury of your peers is that no one is given more power than another.  Judges or council members would gain too much power and they'll be just as corrupt as politicians.

You've got some really good ideas here.  My Master's is in Criminal Justice, although I focused on domestic security issues.

I especially like the idea about videotaping witnesses outside the courtroom; we have done this to protect child witnesses in the past, and I think it works.  Just make sure there is a judge  and the defendant's lawyer in the process as well as an advocate for the witness.  We allow the defendant to confront the witness, but it should be understood that a lawyer is the proper agent for this process.

You have obviously put a great deal of thought into your analysis, but here are some things to consider as well.

Studies have shown that juries and judges (human) have the same statistical rates of error in assigning verdicts,  I don't have the sources to verify that, but that was something I remember as having been surprised about in my study.

One reason that we use judges instead of juries is that they make value decisions, not data decisions...should we be merciful?  or does a guilty defendant deserve to to be punished to the full extant of the law.  While some of these factors can be coded into a judging database, I'm not sure that all can.

Moving on, using analytic databases to make decisions can be problematic.  Stock market runs are often triggered by computers making sale decisions set on preset standards that are not valid for the circumstances at the time of the run, leading to market crashes.

However, you are dead on on noting that politics, human bias, and human ignorance negatively affects the criminal justice system.

Perhaps an AI or analytic system could be of use in confirm a human judge or jury's decision.  Just be aware that regardless of whether a judicial decision is accurate or not, politics and bias can still affect the public's acceptance of the decision, and I suspect that there is a bias against having a "computer"  making human decisions.

In any case, good work, and I look forward to hearing more from you!

It seems that in the future technology will play a much bigger role in our justice system as well as many other areas.  I wonder how that will be viewed as it will be taking away more jobs.