What if they replaced human jurors with robot jurors?

No bias at all they only examine the evidence and come out with a logical verdict.

What if they replaced human jurors with robot jurors?
Would you support this? Why or why not?


0|1
9|23

What Girls Said 9

  • I don't think robots at this age are advanced enough to deal with those sort of factors. Especially when it's someone's life on the line in terms of guilty or not guilty.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I will be unemployed, and would need to change my major asap

    0|1
    0|0
  • I would not support this-AI has a long way to go :) Maybe one day though.

    0|0
    0|0
  • We'd have to do mock trials because in theory, this stuff sounds great but then it backfires lol

    0|0
    0|0
  • But they can't understand or relate to the case on an emotional level, which I think is key. We are emotional creatures after all!

    0|0
    0|1
  • I agree with @Luci92

    1|0
    0|0
  • a human can t understand another human being
    how would a robot do

    0|0
    0|0
  • Tbh, I dont like the idea of robots taking over the world.

    0|0
    0|0

1 private opinion(s)
Only the asker and the opinion owner can see it. Learn more

What Guys Said 22

  • Some time in the future it will be possible.
    Right now, in many non anglosaxon countries lower criminal courts function without a jury: one or up to three professional judges.

    In many countries trials are NOT public: , the judge (s) hear the victim, the defendant, his lawyer, the D. A. , the experts and the witnesses and then pronounce a verdict.
    A jury can be present and speak out in case of appeal.

    This gets close to a routine business, like judgment by computer.

    In case of civil unrest etc, when many people need to be judged in a hurry, just one judge hands out 'express' verdicts like a machine.
    Lawyers aren't always present.

    'Express' high speed trials can even happen in absence of the defendant.
    Sometimes the defendant only hears there was a trial when the judgment is served by a bailiff or lawyer at his home or office.
    Appeal is possible only AFTER the judgment is executed.
    In comparison to that Kafka's book 'The Trial' ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial ) seems very soft.

    If you want to read Kafka's book on line, it's here: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/7849

    0|0
    0|0
  • Only after machines have finally surpassef us and we become so innured and dependent upon them for just about everything we do, I don't see any other way at that point.

    If and when machines have the capability to govern and manage us, then there's really no other way. I would hope then that there would be no more corruption, and swifter and accurate justice delivered.

    By then, we humans would be the minority and endangered species on the planet or something as the machines continue to try and prevent us from completely dying out or something.

    0|0
    0|0
  • You'd let Bender serve on a jury?
    s2.quickmeme.com/.../...174d02e2960cfc59e4397d.jpg

    2|1
    0|0
  • Just got down with jury duty for the year. eff' doing that again. Where do is sign off on this robo-jury system.

    Or better yet just program a little bit of bias into it to give it that human touch.
    So "Does defendant have a face tattoo, Yes?"
    Yeah, he committed that drive by shooting. Guilty. Lets all go home.

    0|0
    0|0
  • I support it I wouldn't have to find new excuses to ditch jury duty.

    0|0
    0|0
  • That's the issue with pure logic and none biased outlook focused only on the evidence, evidence can be faked, tampered with and the like, and robots don't have gut instincts or any of things we humans have that make us great at what we do.

    1|0
    0|0
  • The letter and spirit of the law are different things. Laws need to be enforced with a sense of justice and compassion.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No I don't support it. The need to be able to bring human emotion to the verdict is what makes a jury unique and important. Judges on the other hand, yes they could be robots as emotion should play no part in their decisions.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Assuming they were capable then it would be a good way to erase gender, racial, and religious bias. You can't do that with human beings at the helm. We are guided by ignorance, bias, and hypocrisy.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not until they are sentient - There would still be bias in the programming

    0|1
    0|0
  • No and hell no!
    A government led by the likes of Hillary or Obama would be able to programme the robots to deliver whatever verdict they wanted, just like Democrats do when they manipulate electronic voting machines.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Of course there will be bias, even unintentionally. It will come from the small group of developers who would then effectively have total control of the legal system.

    0|0
    0|0
  • i thinka robot jury would upgrade the American justice system from a cheezy soap opera to an actual "justice" system...

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not really because evidence does 't always equal to the right verdict. We need human instinct for jobs like this

    0|0
    0|0
  • It won't happen. Its a jury of your peers. Roberts are not that 😛

    0|0
    0|0
  • Can't wait to see R2D2 in the stands.

    0|1
    0|0
  • Stock prices of Privet prisons would skyrocket, plus I'd get life with out parole for jay walking.

    0|0
    0|0
  • their algorithms can never be advanced enough to deal with human factors i think.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Trolley example X10.

    0|0
    0|0
  • None of us have to go to jury dooty ever! I support it!

    0|0
    0|0
  • Then what is the point of having a jury then?

    0|0
    0|0
  • I would have to be able to see the robots first.

    Like, I know electronic voting can work once certain safe guards are put in place.
    I also know virtually no company makes electronic voting systems which cannot be tampered with, because the whole point of EV is to be able to sell the results to the politicians who pay the most.

    0|0
    0|0
Loading...