Lawyers and the unbalanced Justice system

[mustafur]

Do you think the Justice system should move towards using Computers/Robots/AI citing law to balance out the effect of wealthier people being able to legally defend them selves superiorly by hiring higher grade Lawyers over the poorer person who may or may not be using the Government appointed attorney who in most cases will push for a settlement regardless of whether said person is guilty or innocent.

I am all for living in a capitalist society and the perks it brings but Law is just one of those things that just will not favour you if your wealth is substandard, if there was a way to neutralize it, the way the justice system works could be significantly more fair.

 

[squadops]

I think the bigger issue is why people are prosecuted for alleged crimes that have no victims. Our justice system, at least in the U.S., has turned into a money machine imo of course.

 

[mustafur]

I think the bigger issue is why people are prosecuted for alleged crimes that have no victims. Our justice system, at least in the U.S., has turned into a money machine imo of course.

We already know why though, the Prison industrial complex.

They Lobby politicians > Politicians pass laws to police that makes it easier to send people to prison > Profit > Spend more on Lobbying

Therefore refer to the election thread, even with that gone this issue in the OP will still exist.

 

[Danoff]

I'm gathering from the OP that you don't care to automate the job of a judge, but that you want to make the job of the lawyer automated. I think, though, that you underestimate the complexity of legal cases when you suggest that a computer could do the job of an attorney. There are some very creative defenses that a computer would never come up with. The people who are the best at coming up with creative defenses will charge the most, and so only people who can come up with that money will be able to afford the best representation.

The capitalist idea that is represented in the courtroom is to use a person's self interest to ensure a fair trial. Each side fights to the absolute best of their ability, and it is up to the judge (or jury) to determine what is right. This is similar to the capitalist model of benefiting everyone by motivating everyone to work for their own benefit.

It is definitely NOT the case that in the law the side with the most money always wins. I've seen first hand the little guy with the two attorneys on one side beat the big guy with the 2 attorneys on the other side sitting in front of the 15 additional observing attorneys sitting right behind them who are all representing that side. To a great extent, money cannot overcome the facts of your case.

If we're going to spend money beefing up our legal system, I say we beef it up with MRI-based lie detector tests that are admissible in court.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Do you think the Justice system should move towards using Computers/Robots/AI citing law to balance out the effect of wealthier people being able to legally defend them selves superiorly by hiring higher grade Lawyers over the poorer person who may or may not be using the Government appointed attorney who in most cases will push for a settlement regardless of whether said person is guilty or innocent.

I am all for living in a capitalist society and the perks it brings but Law is just one of those things that just will not favour you if your wealth is substandard, if there was a way to neutralize it, the way the justice system works could be significantly more fair.

Is fairness the goal or is getting every person the best possible defense the goal? How is it fair that I work extremely hard and can afford the smartest lawyer in town but you'd want me forced to have the same substandard council as everyone else? Sounds like communism to me not capitalism.

 

[mustafur]

Is fairness the goal or is getting every person the best possible defense the goal? How is it fair that I work extremely hard and can afford the smartest lawyer in town but you'd want me forced to have the same substandard council as everyone else? Sounds like communism to me not capitalism.

Who said it would be substandard, there is already enough AI intelligence Technology to destroy anything a human can bring up, using it in a court of law would still take some time in R
& D.
Either way how is it fair for someone to have a legal advantage just from having more money?

 

[tarnheld]

Who said it would be substandard, there is already enough AI intelligence Technology to destroy anything a human can bring up.

I doubt that AI is that far. Can you point me to some results?

Either way how is it fair for someone to have a legal advantage just from having more money?

But AI would cost a lot too... you want to replace judges with AI bots? And who get's the cut programming these bots? Google, Microsoft? Anyone getting into this business would have a nice advantage in the next intellectual property infingement court wars.

MRI-based lie detector tests

NOOOooo...

How would that work? References? For me it's nothing more than to correlate some 3D brain images with brain images of people that were lying. But what if the people who lied for a reference lied about lying?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Who said it would be substandard, there is already enough AI intelligence Technology to destroy anything a human can bring up, using it in a court of law would still take some time in R
& D.
Either way how is it fair for someone to have a legal advantage just from having more money?

A huge part of law is the human element. Compassion. Seeing the good in someone and adjusting their sentence appropriately. I want to be judged by a fellow human, not a computer. Does someone have a legal advantage by having more money or are they just able to get the best possible defense to the limit the law allows? I don't think you understand the difference so I ask again, is the goal to reduce my ability to a good defense because I can afford it, or is the goal to raise up the level of legal defence available to those who cannot afford the best?

 

[Danoff]

A huge part of law is the human element. Compassion. Seeing the good in someone and adjusting their sentence appropriately. I want to be judged by a fellow human, not a computer. Does someone have a legal advantage by having more money or are they just able to get the best possible defense to the limit the law allows? I don't think you understand the difference so I ask again, is the goal to reduce my ability to a good defense because I can afford it, or is the goal to raise up the level of legal defence available to those who cannot afford the best?

The general theme is that people very much want money to only matter when it doesn't matter. Nobody wants to think that they get medical treatment based on how much money they made or saved. Nobody wants to think they get legal defense based on how much money they can spend. Nobody wants to think that anything that really matters in life is influenced by how much money they earned.

The problem with that is that you end up ruining the things that really matter in life when you try to remove money from the equation. The best doctor in the world can't treat everyone, he literally does not have enough time. There is no way to change that fact - so the only thing removing money from the equation does is to encourage that doctor not to treat anyone, or be a doctor at all. Anytime you have a shortage of something (great doctors, great attorneys, gas, food), price-fixing results in over-consumption, which in turn results in rationing - all of which is bad for the production of that item. If you want lots of people to provide it, make it very valuable. Capitalism does a great job at that.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The general theme is that people very much want money to only matter when it doesn't matter. Nobody wants to think that they get medical treatment based on how much money they made or saved. Nobody wants to think they get legal defense based on how much money they can spend. Nobody wants to think that anything that really matters in life is influenced by how much money they earned.

The problem with that is that you end up ruining the things that really matter in life when you try to remove money from the equation. The best doctor in the world can't treat everyone, he literally does not have enough time. There is no way to change that fact - so the only thing removing money from the equation does is to encourage that doctor not to treat anyone, or be a doctor at all. Anytime you have a shortage of something (great doctors, great attorneys, gas, food), price-fixing results in over-consumption, which in turn results in rationing - all of which is bad for the production of that item. If you want lots of people to provide it, make it very valuable. Capitalism does a great job at that.

A great explaination...thanks:tup:

 

[eran0004]

Either way how is it fair for someone to have a legal advantage just from having more money?

The legal advantage does not go away just because the lawyers are equal in skill. A rich person can afford to lose a trial, which gives them a greater ability to actually test their rights. A poor person isn't going to get involved in a lawsuit unless it's really important and they are certain that they're going to win.

On top of that, getting a better lawyer (or maybe simply one who just cares more about you - since you're paying him well) gives you an extra benefit in the court, but just the fact that you're able to go to court and afford to lose is probably a much bigger advantage.

 

[Imari]

I have to point out that if having a better lawyer matters, then at some point justice is not being done. That's probably no surprise, and if we're all honest justice is not done some of the time anyway.

Having expensive lawyers simply shifts any imbalance of justice. If you're rich you probably get a fair trial, assuming that your lawyer pursues all available legal avenues. If you're poor then life's a lottery so be lucky, maybe you get a good lawyer and maybe you don't.

I have no solution for this. It's just a thing.

As I recall, the main problem in that Last Week Tonight bit was that there straight up aren't enough public defenders for those who can't afford a real lawyer. They're horribly overworked, horribly underfunded, and work in terrible conditions under which even the best lawyer in the whole world couldn't be expected to reasonably serve their client.

While the imbalance I mentioned above is unlikely to go away, it probably helps a lot if we make sure that everyone has access to a competent lawyer who has a reasonable amount of time to review and prepare their clients case.

On the other hand, I think the idea of using computers as lawyers is the dumbest thing I've heard in some time. Maybe one day in the future, but today is most definitely not that day.

The legal advantage does not go away just because the lawyers are equal in skill. A rich person can afford to lose a trial, which gives them a greater ability to actually test their rights. A poor person isn't going to get involved in a lawsuit unless it's really important and they are certain that they're going to win.

Which is unfortunately also the basis for patent trolls.

 

[Danoff]

Which is unfortunately also the basis for patent trolls.

There's not really such a thing as patent trolls. They're all litigation trolls. Whether it's asking for a settlement to avoid fighting a bogus patent or asking for a settlement to avoid fighting a bogus personal injury suit, it's all based on the same principle - that litigation costs enough that the threat of a suit is worth money to get rid of. The basis for that, then, is that the winner in a lawsuit can't recoup their costs from the loser.

 

[Com Fox]

Question is though, if we had an A.I running the judge. There is no chance of getting around the legal double standards that exist (granted there wasn't much of a chance to begin with). Of course you could "patch it", but who would patch the broken system? Most of the higher-ups believe in our status quo and don't want much change, especially the double standards that are exploited for several years.