posted on Jun, 28 2013 @ 01:24 AM
Hi everyone and thanks for your comments. All of them.
Firstly, I want to convey that my suggestion leans more toward the sentencing than the judgement of guilt itself at this time. I can see how I
wasn't entirely clear about that. Cases of a more complex variety such as murder, rape, would still require a jury and the current system as is - for
the time being, until a better solution to that is implemented. And you can't say that the current system does not require restructure.
I'm referring to the more cut and dry cases that people get wrongly sentenced in. And there's a lot of them.
Everything from your standard speeding tickets to DUI, drug charges, petty theft, solicitation. Most of those cases don't include juries and the
sentences from them vary wildly and are often grossly affected by corruption and partial judging. Mr. Johnson's case was a great one to bring up
SpanishArcher, and is an excellent example of how one judge being offended directly impacts another person's life.
There are countless cases that this happens in. Especially in the lives of the ordinary, everyday criminals, often young people that get their entire
lives ruined by one person's whim. Yes, rickymouse, there are rules that judges are supposed to follow, but they have time and time again proved that
they don't necessarily do that. And while there are statutes in place that are there to combat that kind of activity, many are either financially
unable or intellectually unaware of these alternatives.
Regarding the infallibility of the software, it's very simple and the results could be easily compared to insure a median sentence free from
abnormalities. If defendant A is found/pleads guilty of shoplifting $100 of merchandise 1st offense, the sentence should equal defendant B's sentence
if the crime was the same and would be visible to the defendants anonymously to compare against each other and the numerous other sentences that match
Obviously multiple extraneous variables such as repeat offense, additional criminal elements like resisting arrest, etc. can be factored into the
sentencing to reflect an impartial sentence that is in accordance to the law and fairly distributed to all those who committed said crime in said
fashion. Lol. I'm starting to understand why law-based literature gets so elaborate.
And while the focus above leans toward sentencing, there's no reason that software could not also compare evidence based on thousands of previous
judgements and come up with a logical judgement of simpler cases. Any radical judgement/glitch could be contested and reviewed if necessary.
OR perhaps defendants could have the choice on whether they wish the computer-based judgement or the standard proven very fallible human choice.