Computer as Jury
University:
University of Malta & University of Limerick
Course:
Masters in IT (MIT06) & Masters in Interactive
Media
Credit:
Ethics in IT & Professional Issues in Interactive
Media
Credit Group:
C
Case Study Title:
Computer as Jury
Team:
Holly Kennedy (social contract theory - anti)
Derrick Howard (social contract theory - pro)
Louise Keane (Kantianism – anti)
Owen Sacco (Kantianism – pro)
Jonathan Spiteri (Utilitarianism – pro)
Dominic Bellizzi (Utilitarianism – anti)
1
Table Of Contents
Table Of Contents............................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Social Contact Theory..................................................................................................................... 3
The ethical benefits of using a computer as a Jury referencing social contract
theory............................................................................................................................................... 3
The disadvantage of using a computer as a jury system referencing Social
Contract theory ............................................................................................................................ 5
Kantanism........................................................................................................................................... 7
The positive ethical issues of having a computer as jury from a Kantian
perspective .................................................................................................................................... 7
The disadvantage of using a computer as a jury system referencing from a
Kantian perspective ................................................................................................................... 9
Utilitariamism ................................................................................................................................ 11
Arguments in Favor................................................................................................................. 11
Arguments Against .................................................................................................................. 14
Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 16
References ....................................................................................................................................... 17
2
Introduction
We have chosen the case study “Computer as Jury” as we were all interested
in the issue. We then identified three ethical theories that we thought were
relevant, after discussing online. Debating first of all in a general way then
narrowing these opinions down to look at three theories of primary
interest. Those were Social Contract Theory, Kantianism and
Utilitarianism. We divided up into three pairs each pair taking an ethical
theory then debating the pros and cons of the case study through that
ethical theory, this is the main body of this report, which follows.
Social Contact Theory
The ethical benefits of using a computer as a Jury referencing social
contract theory
Social contract theory forms the theoretical basis for our notion of a modern
political democracy. It is the notion that we, by staying put, are agreeing to be
part of our society. That is entering a contract with our peers to agree on a
common set of rules. But what if one member who still wants to be part of this
society breaks those rules? In this case we must agree on a fair and just way to
decide, first of all what rules they have broken (if any) and second of all how to
punish them for breaking the rules. This is the basis for the discussion here.
The problem as put to us in the case study, stated:
The liberal state of Caledonia, because of the increase in crime in the state,
has found itself with the problem of having many more criminals to try in
the courts than it has time to try them.
This is all about granting a fair trail to the citizens of Caledonia. People have the
right to a fair trial. But there is no point in guaranteeing a fair trail to the accused
if they must wait in custody for months pining for a judge and jury to hear their
case. Also it’s important to note that it becomes harder and harder to grant a fair
trial to the accused as time passes. Witnesses will find it more challenging to
recall what they saw, and police will find it more demanding to remember the
exact course of events.
And on the point of a fair trial, who is to say that having your peers judge you
brings you any closer to a fair trial. The law in most jurisdictions has an innate
requirement for new judgments not to contradict the judgments passed in those
courts, or higher, already. This is a daunting task when you consider how many
judgments there could have already been. It’s likely to be a lot if the courts are so
backed up. Now would you trust 12 average people to be mindful of all other
judgments while deciding whether you should serve time in prison or not? I
think, in fact I know, it is a task a computer could perform in seconds, correctly
each and every time.
3
The proposal of having a computer as a jury becomes even more desirable when,
as the case study says, you look at the fact that not all evidence is admissible in
court. But a lawyer can easily say something he knows to be inadmissible, fully
expecting it to be struck from the record by the judge but hoping to influence the
jury in their, or should I say their clients favor. Could you trust yourself to forget
a convincing monologue by a well-versed lawyer if told to do so by the judge?
This problem is eradicated when you replace the jury with a system in which the
judge can decide out right what does and doesn’t get taken into account.
Since social contract theory is based around the rights we have as members of
this society, lets consider the rights of those being asked to give up their time to
be members of a jury. It is arguable that these people are adequately rewarded
for their time and as such there is no infringement on their rights. But look at the
case of a self-employed businessman for example. He may be paid for his time
but this is not going to make up for the loss of business that is incurred from not
being available to acquire new contracts, it will not cover the expense of bringing
in someone to finish existing contracts while he decides on the fate of possible
criminals.
There is another right which placing a computer as a jury will defend. Imagine a
young woman, not long out of college, who is called to be a juror in a case about a
middle aged man with serious mental disorder who in the pervious years has
brutally raped and murdered numerous people. That young lady has the right
not to be forced to sit through that disturbing and possibly graphic evidence.
That woman has the right to her peace of mind.
It has been put forward a number of times in the online discussion about the
ability of computers to be juries. This I don’t think is a major concern, Google
deals with millions of different search structures which is proof that computer’s
natural language processing is proficient. Also these systems could be designed
from the ground up with security in mind, like the systems international banks
might use – and therefore would be as secure if not more than using people as a
jury. But apart from all this the case study is about the ethical decision of
employing computers as opposed to people. So if you don’t believe computers
could do an adequate job – suspend your belief – that’s not what this is about. If
they were capable computers are more honorable than man.
Discussing computers as jurors with regard to social contract theory is obviously
all about getting the balance right between an individuals rights and
responsibilities in society. The most overriding right here, since we are possibly
talking about taking away someone’s freedom is the right to a fair trial. Looking
up the Oxford English dictionary one of the definitions I found for the word fair
was: - Equitably, honestly, impartially, justly; according to rule.
A person will always carry the bias they’ve build up through out their life time,
it’s only natural. We should not and cannot expect them to leave this at the door
when walking into a court of law. Computers don’t have bias, computers don’t
have a prejudice - they will not judge on anything other than the admissible
evidence submitted to them. More than this being an OK method for dealing with
a backlog this is a better method for guaranteeing the citizens of Caledonia a just,
quick and fair trial.
4
The disadvantage of using a computer as a jury system referencing
Social Contract theory
According to social contract theory people have rights in return for an agreement
to respect and defend the rights of others and in the process give up certain
freedoms in accepting this. These freedoms being what Thomas Hobbs referred
to as 'state of nature' where anyone can do what the like to who ever they like.
In relation to using computers as a jury system which may be of great benefit in
many ways to getting cases put through the courts more quickly and generally
speeding up the whole process for the defendant, lawyers and society as a whole.
It cannot however replicate human mind and its decision making process. The
basic premise behind the entire judicial system in the western world is that an
accused individual has the inalienable right to be appraised by a jury of their
peers. This is a basic human right and exists at the centre of our implementation
of social contract theory.
John Rawls Principles of Justice says that each individual has certain basic rights
and liberties, as long as they everyone else shares the same rights and liberties. I
do not think that using a computer as jury respects a person’s right to a trial by a
jury of their peers. Would society’s consciousness be clear of any doubt that it
would be making wrong decisions, being manipulated or just basically incapable
of replacing a human jury?
While standing trial you have the right to expect a jury to be capable of
possessing and understanding virtues. When someone is in the position of
judging your behaviour they should have a good moral character, a computer
system cannot develop virtues as human can by practicing self-discipline, for
example. During the process of being sworn in as a juror you are asked to judge
and be convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Now I
ask you what would a computer make of this? Reason, quite different from logic,
is a distinctly human method of decision-making.
I think it is hard to escape this fundamental right to be tried by a jury of your
peers, this case study is set in America so it is part of their constitution. Would
people be the jury in their own homes removed from the courtroom or a
computer replacing the jury all together? The only uniformity you can have in a
jury is that given by society or state to its members, which is through education,
moral values the principles we try to propagate in future generations. Replacing
twelve minds with one computer is a retrograde step, more than a retrograde
step it goes against the basic rights and responsibilities we have signed up to by
agreeing to live in this society.
Computers are susceptible to being hacked and who would be responsible for
inputting the evidence into the computer for it to make a decision. How would it
be insured that they are not biased or making their own judgments upon what
evidence should be put forward or omitted? Does this mean that there would
have to be a group of people to decide this? Mixing new technology with basic
functions of the state requires more than just a systematic evaluation of the
process, it requires guarantees that we are served equally well by the new
5
technology than we were by the human mind – for example look at the instance
of the Irish state trying to bring in e-voting. After many years and millions of
euros, counting ballets by hand is still the preferred option. Technology is great
for assisting us as we oversee a process not replacing us.
I believe that a cunning lawyer will find anyway to manipulate a jury or in this
case a computer to result in the verdict that they would want for their client, I
think that this system could only be used in relation to traffic offences like
parking tickets etc. not decisions that could result in a persons loss of freedom or
life if incorrectly used, manipulated, hacked or systems failed.
Lets look at an example and examine if a computer is able, or even anywhere
close to capable of make a fair and just judgement. Think of an 18-year-old male
who has sex with a 16-year girl, they are only two years apart and have been in a
relationship for quite some time. They have both made a consenting decision to
move their relationship on. But the girl’s father gets wind of this and wants to
bring charges. By law this girl has been the victim of statutory rape. Now you
may say that looking at precedent that computer would be able to make a fair
decision. But what if there is no precedent? Or what if there was precedent but
the girl wasn’t consensual and this was visible through her behaviour and body
language in the court. There is no technology that could pick up on these nuances
like a human.
Social contract theory is based on rights and focuses on the individual I think
that in relation to an individual standing trial for a serious crime, a trial that
could result in their loss of freedom or life they have the right to expect to tried
by a jury of their peers, to have the benefit of multiple minds, attitudes and social
back grounds to listen and process the evidence and the responsibility that those
people may carry within themselves to make sure that they give the evidence
their full attention and question and analyze it in order to make the correct
judgment. Many cases are not black and white and the human mind has the
ability to see the different shades of grey in between, but I do not think computer
acting, as a jury, possesses this ability. We are complex creatures, our actions
even more so, we do not understand why a person may steal from, kill or even
rape another individual so how on earth are we supposed to program a machine
to understand and judge our actions.
6
Kantanism
The positive ethical issues of having a computer as jury from a
Kantian perspective
Deontological ethics gives importance to the rightness and wrongness of the
actions rather than the consequences of those actions. Kant’s ethical theory, one
of the deontological ethical theories, focuses on the moral duty rather than
emotions or the ultimate outcome of an action. This theory therefore implies
that the actions must not be according to a person’s subjective preferences but
must be carried out in the name of fulfilling a duty. Having a jury made up of
human beings, it is their nature that they judge an act as right or wrong on the
basis of emotional feelings, experiences, or any other personal perception. In
this respect, it is justifiable to have a machine that can produce a verdict for an
act that is right or wrong without having any emotional or consequential bias in
order to be compliant with Kant’s ethical theory. Moreover, humans tend to
suffer from “weakness of will” as Aristotle once stated, and for machines this
should not be a problem because once a machine reaches a conclusion what it
ought or ought not to do, the output will follow automatically.
According to Kant, all actions are performed according to an underlying maxim
(or plan of action). The moral value of an act is judged according to this maxim.
When judging court cases on the basis of Kant’s theory, juries must therefore
reach a verdict that is in accordance to a maxim rather than personal subjective
preferences. The concept of having a maxim as the foundation of all actions
performed led to the formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative principal
whereby it produces a set of rules on how to evaluate whether a maxim is right
or wrong.
Since these set of rules are logical in nature, these can easily be
translated to computer algorithms such that a computer system can infer that a
maxim is right or wrong and eventually arrive to a conclusion that an action is
right or wrong. This would definitely eliminate any biased opinion or any
emotional feeling that may influence a juror’s verdict and thus the verdict will
not conform to Kant’s ethical theory. Computer systems, especially in the light of
inference, have the ability to be more faithful to Kant’s set of rules as to how to
evaluate a maxim.
Kant’s Categorical imperative relies on two main formulations: Formula of the
Universal Law – “act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will
that it should be a universal law” and the Formula of the End Itself – “act so as to
treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means”. The first
formulation is made up of several rules that in a nutshell, Kant tells the moral
agent to test each maxim as though it were a candidate for a universalized rule.
Later, he adds that each universalized rule must fit into a system of rules for all
persons. In other words, my maxim will be an instance of a rule only if I can will
that everyone might act on such a maxim. Furthermore, such a universalized
rule must be consistent with other rules generated in a similar manner. The
procedure for deriving duties from maxims requires no special moral or
intellectual intuition peculiar to humans. Whether a maxim could be a universal
rule presents a decision problem that’s the same for a human or a machine.
7
Therefore, what I mean is that computers do possess the ability to infer and
produce an outcome that is completely unbiased from emotions or personal
experiences. Moreover this formulation implies consistency whereby a
universalized maxim should be the basis of several actions that contain the same
pattern and circumstances. Humans do tend to arrive to conclusions differently
in any situation even if the act is constant. According to Kant, if a universal
maxim for an act is a particular outcome, then machines would definitely infer
and conclude that outcome in any situation for that act.
In Kant’s second formulation, he stipulates that actions should be ends rather
than means to other actions. The most common problem that humans tend to
suffer is that they deceive others. For instance when people lie, this results in
deceiving other persons. For example: Someone asks you where a person lives
so that he can go and kill him, and you know where the victim lives. You tell him
that you will take him to the victim, but instead, you end up taking him to the
authorities. This is because from your rational thinking, you say that it is wrong
to kill a person (but you do not say that lying to the murderer is wrong).
According to Kant’s theory, everyone (including wrongdoers) is to be treated
with a certain sort of moral respect. We may punish the wrongdoer to treat
him/her as responsible for his/her actions, but; whilst respecting his/her moral
dignity. Deliberately deceiving the wrongdoer is actually going against the moral
dignity of that person. Therefore humans do tend to deceive others using their
rational thinking and this would actually go against Kant’s ethical theory since
they will be disrespecting other people’s moral dignity. One might argue from a
Utilitarian framework perspective that “what if we deceive in order to bring out
the better good?” But this is not good enough from Kant’s theory. The act of
deceiving is actually using the person as a means and not as an end. It is not
using them as an end because it leaves them in a position in which they can’t give
their rational consent. They can’t consent because they don’t have the
information that consent requires. Therefore, in a court case, if lawyers deceive
the wrongdoer by interrogating the wrongdoer and asking tricky questions to
create an image of the wrongdoer to the jury that the wrongdoer cannot actually
give their rational consent since they do not know what actually the jury is
thinking. This goes against Kant’s theory. So with the aid of computers, this will
reduce the ambiguity or even remove personal subjective judgments and focus
on ends rather than means. Therefore, the verdict would be more ethical based
on such theory. Algorithms would be based to perceive wrongdoers as ends
rather than as means and all facts would be processed at face value rather than
any other intention in mind.
8
The disadvantage of using a computer as a jury system referencing
from a Kantian perspective
Kantianism uses the term "morals" when explaining their theory on ethics. But
what are morals? and do we believe that computers can obtain these "morals"?
Kantianism judgments can be explained and argued. If a computer obtains
certain "morals" it can explain its findings, but just quantitative manner. Can a
person be convinced that this is a correct finding/verdict just through numbers
and graphs? I know myself that quantitative studies just have a right or wrong
outcome and I believe that is all that a computer can process.
I don't think computers can be used as a jury as most members of society would
prefer a reason "why" that was the verdict instead of stating Mr A did 1 thing
against the law so he is guilty while this 1 thing could be seen as self defence
while the computer may just conclude that it is murder. I don’t think a computer
can distinguish with cases such as murder vs self defence unless it has human
aid. So what I am trying to explain is that computers can only reach a verdict by
using quantitative research but I don’t believe that the stakeholders would be
convinced by these results
I use the term “why” relating to qualitative research. With that said I still 100%
agree that most people would ask the question why that was the verdict, ie what
was the reason behind that verdict. I don’t think computers are that advanced
that they would be able to provide this answer. I do agree that “why” never has a
concrete but is what people wonder and ask for, and I think if computers cam
come to a conclusion on why it would only be the obvious “why” answer while if
people are in the jury there will be a multiple of answers that at least one can
satisfy as an answer.
Kant believed that good will was the only universal law of the world. Can a
computer understand if an action is conducted under good will or not? It brings
up the robin hood situation of a poor father stealing food off a rich family to feed
his own family. I think that “good will” is something that humans’ posses but I
feel it is too complex for a computer to understand.
Kant explains a law that will use good will as moral law which is defined as;
moral law: the one 'fact' of practical reason, which is in every rational person,
though some people are more aware of it than others. The moral law, in essence, is
our knowledge of the difference between good and evil, and our inner conviction
that we ought to do what is good.
(http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html)
9
In the previous quote he uses the term “every rational person” which I think
explains why Kant would not agree that computers could be able to understand
moral law.
How can computers be rational? Dictionary.com defines rational as “agreeable to
reason”. This definition backs up the idea I had in my 1st post of explaining the
verdict qualitatively as reason is defined as “the mental powers concerned with
forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences.”. Can a computer actually come to
a rational conclusion? I don’t think it can I think it can just calculate the
information given to them.
Computer programs are all made up on 1’s and 0’s so I don’t see how a computer
program can interpret everything said in the courtroom and come up with a
correct conclusion. Can computers even understand sentences? I think Kant
would agree that to make a verdict using moral law the jury should fully
understand what evidence is presented to them.
Nelson (2008) states that kant describes humanity as “something whose
existence had in itself an absolute value”. Can we give computers an absolute
value? I don’t think we can as computers are 100% disposable as computers now
become outdated after 2-5 years as there is an advance in software and
hardware development are every year.
Lucht’s (2007) states that Kant seems to be very interested in humanity as he
explains that without humanity the natural world would be nothing but a “mere
wasteland, gratuitous and without a final purpose”. This brings us to Kant’s
categorical imperative theory where he states “act so as to treat people always as
ends
in
themselves,
never
as
mere
means”
(http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html) yet in the earlier
quote Kant explains that everything other than humanity is “without a final
purpose”.
Lucht (2007) states that cant explains that we have “an ability to judge ourselves
independently of nature and reveals in us a superiority over nature”, but can we
give computers this same superiority? I don’t think computers can have
superiority over nature. If we think of a computers nature which would have
been created by a human so how can we say that a computer has more
superiority than a human if a human is what created and controls computers.
In conclusion I do not think Kant would agree that computers should replace a
jury. As can be seen from my argument above Kant has a great admiration for
humanity itself which can’t be compared with computers. Computers cant be
seen to exist without humans as humans control computers and with this case
study they want to cut down on the amount of humans needed which means that
us as a society has to deal with that one persons verdict. I do know that the
computer will be full of laws and case studies but isn’t that what the judge does?
Jurors are meant to be ordinary members of society and I know in this country
people who study law aren’t allowed to become members of a jury because of
their knowledge. This means that if computers were introduced it would have to
10
create a whole new meaning of jurors. It may be easy to give a computer
knowledge of laws etc but we can’t give it the opinion on an ordinary member of
society. So I believe that computers will not be able to replace a human jury.
Utilitariamism
Arguments in Favor
In the process of trying to approach such a situation in the best manner possible
in order to achieve more benefits than harm to all stakeholders, one should also
consider approaching the case with a fair and just consideration.
For instance, an important factor one has to keep in mind is that human beings
do base their reasoning and decisions on their personal experiences and life
encounters, on what brought them sufferance and happiness etc. Humans
instinctively elicit behavioral and emotional reactions when facing or being
driven into decision-making positions, which eventually lead to subjective
judgment and views of the situation, and consequentially influencing
significantly the outcome of their decisions.
In few words, the risk of having biased judgments and decisions in a trial of
human jurors is quite substantial. Humans possess consciousness and selfawareness, and they may be negatively driven by strong emotions like despise,
hate, sorrow and anger; or on the other hand, be driven by compassion, love and
pity.
Favoritism and discrimination are also revolving factors for human decisions,
which may incite preference, sympathy, antipathy, hate etc. Humans may
discriminate against others based on many issues like; different religion or
belief, hatred or intolerance of other races (like believing some races are
inherently superior/inferior), grounds of sexual orientation, different social
stratum (thus abusing of others placing in different social ranks), politics, culture
etc. Having computers as jurors in a trial eliminates biased decision-making,
prejudice and preference/inclinations which may somehow inhibit impartial
judgment by humans.
An advantages in making use of computers as jury would be the reduction of
time involved in a lot of human dependent activities before, during and after the
court case. Also in this case the cost involved in the process would result in fewer
expenses in the long run because once the computer system is setup; the running
cost would be relatively minimal compared to a full jury.
The process of selecting jury candidates involves careful selection, with in-depth
research on every person to understand their backgrounds and track records. By
having a computer system in place, this process would be eliminated completely
– a computer system with all the needed intelligence and previous cases data is
there ready to serve the purpose when required. The persons usually involved in
the selection of the jury would be happy to know that the selection process is not
needed anymore and that the responsibility usually on their shoulders to choose
valid jury members is not needed anymore.
11
We humans are usually susceptible to surrounding information; even the
information that is in out subconscious influences our point of view and
decisions. There have been situation in court where lawyers influenced the jury
with evidence of facts not relevant to the case. Having a computer would not
leave the system vulnerable to such non-relevant input. This would make the
stakeholders in general calmer, knowing that irrelevant information and
manipulation would not affect the system.
Taking into consideration all the witnesses and long processes through which a
trial passes through, is humanly very difficult for the jury members to actually
pay attention to all that is being said with great detail. If a computerized jury
system is well designed, taking the same quality of input for its “judgment”, then
in the end the final result would theoretically be more accurate. The
stakeholders in this case would be more confident in the outcome of the system
due to its constant and accurate capture of information.
Society plays a role when jurors are selected and are required to attend the trial.
This often requires a lot of efforts from the jurors to accommodate themselves in
the area of the trial (most of the time they are also kept under strict control to
minimize outside contact and influence), disrupting their everyday routine.
Jurors need to be away from work for an indefinite amount of time to attend the
trial. Putting a jury computer system in place would put less pressure on society,
which is an indirect stakeholder in a trial, by not having to worry about
attending to trials personally.
Stakeholders’ View
The Jurors
The jurors can have the right to choose if to be replaced by a computer instead of
having to attend the trials in person. This would be fair on jurors if they have
other personal reasons not to attend the trial and would also make the trial
system more random by possibly mixing the jurors with human and computer
entities.
The Accused
From the accused point of view, having a computer system to understand his or
her position can be a good or a bad aspect depending on the situation of the
accused. If the accused knows he/she is actually innocent in the trial, probably
having a computer system in front would present a lot of frustration because one
cannot express the actual feelings to the jury in this case. Even body language
and emotions would count in this case, which will definitely be something very
difficult for a computer system to accurately understand. On the other hand, if
the accused actually knows that he/she is guilty in the trial, mixed feelings would
be more common to have.
12
The Defense
The defense may be positively affected by the fact of having computers judging
the trial instead of humans. For example, as discussed beforehand, having
computers as jurors may eliminate any biased judgments or prejudice from the
juror’s side. This will aid the defense in putting forward its contestation,
confident that this will be analyzed in a fair and just manner and without having
to worry of any human emotional conflicts.
On the other hand, having computers as jurors may turn out negatively against
the defense whereas humans are compassionate and capable of forgiving. They
may judge according to such feelings, putting themselves in the accused’s
position, and maybe pitying him/her for the possible infliction of a hard
punishment. By eliminating such possibilities through the replacement of
humans by computers, one also eliminates possible positive judgments in favor
of the defense’s side.
The Judge
The judge is charged with the responsibility of administering justice by hearing
and deciding cases in a court of law. His/her role may be seen as acting
independently on whether the jurors are humans or computers, as long as the
final conclusions of the jury are drawn and he/she is able to produce the final
verdict. However, one may also say that not having the presence of humans
during a trial may decrease the possibility of interferences or behavioral
destructions, and also increasing the possibility of drawing unbiased conclusions
which maybe would aid to a fair objective final judgment.
The Society
Society plays an important role in such trials, because even if not directly present
in a hearing, it is strongly affected by the final verdict. Society raises issues and
complaints in relation to final verdicts, especially if the great majority/common
public’s opinion is against the final verdict, and judges the latter to be unjust. In
such cases, one would point out that such complaints are directed against the
decision holders, i.e. to the judge and also the jurors. Whereas in cases where
computers are placed as jury society might raise complaints against the actual
effectiveness of the system, however, it cannot actually accuse the judgments
withdrawn as being impartial or biased. On the contrary, this last issue may be
easily raised when humans take part as jurors in the trial, thus increasing the
risk of controversial issues and in some cases, if confidential issues are disclosed,
even increasing the risk of threats and other attempts.
13
Arguments Against
Whereas an act utilitarianism looks at the subject from what produces the
most number of people happy, in rule utilitarianism, what is good and
what is bad is decided by a rule. This issue has been discussed a lot in the
debate and we can summarize that the discussion focused on three main
points, namely Communication issues, Computing management and
Technology, and Human Rights for fair judgment.
A lot has been said on Communication. The main argument was the fact
that computers cannot communicate on the same level as humans.
Humans are passionate, emotional creatures and do not communicate only
verbally but use a lot of other methods such as the non-verbal
communications which according to studies have a great effect on our
understanding. All this will be lost with computers replacing human
beings on a jury.
If we were to use the computers to present the details of a case to jurors,
we have to take care in the way it is presented. Lengthy text with a lot of
technical jargon and poor presentation would be boring for the individual
to read and it would be tempting for the juror to jump sections of text and
finally take decisions of what he assumes what’s written rather than the
actual text. We have to see this in comparison with the juror sitting in
court hearing the case and asking questions in real time.
On the other hand if the jurors were to be completely replaced by
computers, the passion and emotions will be lost.
From the act utilitarianism view, this would create a lot of the
stakeholders unhappy, since both the prosecution and defense lawyers
would not have the opportunity to use these communication skills to
forward their arguments. On the same level, the society will not be
satisfied that the outcome of the jury was a result of correct deliberation
or not.
The existing technology and level of education in computing were very hot
issues during the discussion regarding the use of computers instead of
juries. Most people were against computers being used to judge people
due to existing technology problems, such as hacking, the way data will be
inputted, the type of algorithms to be used, and the lack of computing
ability to differentiate between cases.
14
Whereas technology has improved a lot and is continuing to do so, for the
current situation people still do not have confidence enough that
information transmitted over the network cannot be hacked or tampered
with. The current technology still do not offer the complete guarantee of
privacy and that as a consequence it is not ethical to use it for issues such
as jury.
Using a computer to judge a person would be looking at the situation from
a rule utilitarian view. Computers have rules and they would decide
according to their rules. But would it always be a correct judgment. An
example of a rule would be that to kill is illegal, and according to rule, a
first degree murder and killing for self defense are the same thing. This
would definitely lead to a lot of unhappy people and thus according to
Utilitarianism is unethical. Also, having a computer deciding the future of
people by certain rules, would lead to a sort of ‘dictatorship’ were
something is either good or wrong irrespective of motives, accused state of
mind, threats, and other human factors such as natural language
processing (NLP).
Another argument against computer technology is the fact that a computer
cannot simulate the wealth gained from having different people with
different cultures, opinions and values that is available when there is a
mixed jury. Once again from the utilitarian view this would lead people not
to be happy since they may think different from what the computer has
been programmed to do.
The issue of illiteracy has also emerged in the discussion of whether jurors
should stay at home and information is delivered to them by computing
methods. From research done by the United Nations, there is still a
percentage of people who are not only computer illiterate but also
numerical and language illiterate. Being illiterate is not a reason of
disqualifying a person from serving as a juror in the traditional system,
whereas they will be automatically disqualified if they have to read
evidence or use a computer at home. This will deprive a fraction of society
to serve as juror even if they want to.
In our discussion it has been stated that, when a crime is committed, it has
not been committed against state only (breaking laws) but it has also been
committed against the society (depriving it from peace, wealth and safety).
In this issue we can look at the case from two views i.e. the accused view
and the society’s view.
15
From the accused point view, putting him under the judgment of
computers is going to create unfair trial, since computers do not possess
any virtues and morals. A human being (whether accused or not) has the
right to be judged by his peers and not by a machine. A computer cannot
distinguish between different cases and situations, and most of all it
cannot give any reason for its decision, except that of a guilty or not guilty
version and whatever the programmer has inputted.
This is also seen from the societies view. Most members of society would
prefer a reason "why" that was the verdict, instead of stating Mr A did
something against the law so he is guilty. Going back to what has been
stated above since the crime has been committed against society, the
society has a right to judge the accused rather than leaving the decisions to
machines. Most people in society, while accepting the fact that a computer
does not look at faces (which is a positive point), still want to insert their
society’s moral virtues in the judgment, which is something a computer
cannot do. This is something a society has a right to do since the crime was
committed against the respective society, in fact what is wrong in one
society is good in another society and one cannot just use rule
utilitarianism in all societies in the same way as will be done if computers
were to replace human beings in juries.
Conclusion
This topic is so vast and the ethical theories we have chosen to discuss it are
even more so. We have not reach a definitive conclusion as a group on whether
or not the future lays in computers in the court-room. This has however been a
valuable learning experience for us to debate in a structured way with others
that may not necessarily hold the same views or values.
16
References
Nelson, W. Mind (2008), ‘Kant’s Formula of Humanity’, Vol. 117, 465.
Lucht, M. (2007), ‘Does Kant Have Anything to Teach us about Environmental
Ethics’ , American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1.
Trinity University, Philosophy Department (2001), Kant’s Eithics [online] ,
available: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/kant_ethics.html [accessed
20/04/08].
Hong Kong Baptist University, Stephen Palmquist, Glossary of Kant's
Technical
Terms
[online],
available:
http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/ksp1/KSPglos.html [accessed 08/04/08].
Dictionary.com, rational - Definitions from Dictionary.com [online]
available: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational [accessed
08/04/08]
17