Time: Fri Jul 04 04:34:30 1997 by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA21476; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 04:35:07 -0700 (MST) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA09813; Fri, 4 Jul 1997 04:35:00 -0700 (MST) Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 04:33:15 -0700 To: amadeus@adnc.com From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: judges & computers (fwd) References: <3.0.2.16.19970703170005.3d67b5e8@pop.primenet.com> I'm not imposing anything on people. I do want them to appreciate the immense power that derives from having a large text database, and a fast computer to search that text, and a laser-printer to produce perfect documents. /s/ Paul Mitchell http://www.supremelaw.com At 08:26 PM 7/3/97 -0800, you wrote: >Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote: >> >> the solution is to put powerful computers >> into the hands of people who understand >> the application of fundamental principles >> >> THAT is the solution and >> >> THAT is one of the goals of the Supreme Law School >> >> /s/ Paul Mitchell >> http://www.supremelaw.com >> >> At 04:49 PM 7/3/97 -0700, you wrote: >> > >> >-> SearchNet's SNETNEWS Mailing List >> > >> >When I visited Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska ca. 1990 to investigate a case >> >which subsequently became "The Franklin Coverup" (title of book by >> >lawyer, John DeCamp from Nebraska) I noticed there were Computer Kiosks >> >in the Shopping Malls. They served as visitor guides re serves, maps etc. >> >I think we should have a plain language law code on Public Computer >> >Kiosks like this in all Ftr_Cities. >> >FWP. >> > >> >On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Ricardo Guibourg wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> Claire Hill has made some interesting questions. >> >> In what respects might computers do a better job than judges? >> >> When we know exactly how to make a decision, no matter how much >> complicated it is, a computer can apply the criteria and find a solution in >> a faster, cheaper and transparent way. >> >> >> >> In what respects would they do a worse job? >> >> When we do not know exactly how to do what we can do, we depend on >> implicit, hidden, changing or unknown criteria. Computers would be lost in >> that jungle. >> >> >> >> How would we program the computers? >> >> We would have to find out our actual criteria and make them explicit. >> That is the difficult part of the work. The rest is only a complicated and >> specialized routine. >> >> >> >> How could they learn from "experience"? > >Your discussion on computers couldn't possibly measure the motives and >results that a court would give. The entire history and psychological >makeup of the judging parties would have to be made known by the public >being judged by such an automated system. It would be the worst thing to >lay on a free people a la 1984... Orwell re-visited. > >The first thing I learned in litigation studies was "NEVER trust the >judge." Someone always owns them as well as the attorneys... and it >isn't the litigants. > >What era of law could you impose on people... fairly? > >Enjoy your notes, > >- Richard > > ======================================================================== Paul Andrew Mitchell : Counselor at Law, federal witness B.A., Political Science, UCLA; M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine tel: (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night email: [address in tool bar] : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU website: http://www.supremelaw.com : visit the Supreme Law Library now ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech, at its best Tucson, Arizona state : state zone, not the federal zone Postal Zone 85719/tdc : USPS delays first class w/o this As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice. We shall not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. ======================================================================== [This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail