Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Michigan Creates Cybercourt

Posted by michael on from the justice-unplugged dept.

Boone^ writes: "Michigan's Governor John Engler today signed a bill that would create a virtual state court where lawyers could file briefs and make appearances by teleconference. The state Supreme Court will set the rules in the coming months, and District or circuit court judges will be assigned for 3-year terms. How soon until sufficient AI exists to automate the process, and mobile justice can be handed out Judge Dredd style?" We did a story about this when it was first proposed.

7 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Oy... by RareHeintz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This sounds cool, but I think there are going to be problems with it, if not right off the bat, then sometime down the road. Even with crypto, digital signatures, &c, there's huge potential for say, tweaking someone's plea, tampering with documentary evidence, and if (as the blurb suggests) a sufficiently spiffy AI ever comes to be, then even the telepresence of a lawyer or client could be spoofed.

    Physical presence is just better for some things.

    OK,
    - B

    --
    http://www.bradheintz.com/
    - updated
  2. However.... by chronos2266 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This will never replace the need for real lawyers, and this may even put some clients at a disadvantage. Body language means a lot when convincing a jury or judge, you just dont get that from a TV Screen.

    1. Re:However.... by CSieber · · Score: 5, Insightful

      However, maybe it shouldn't. A judge in these cases is supposed to be able to decide based on the facts alone. I regard the fact that body language and other "lawyerly tricks" can sway any decision as quite unfortunate. I think that if this can eliminate those things its a positive rather than a negative. Obviously real AI is a long long way off, and that is the only thing that could possible replace a human lawyer, much less a judge. Moral programming anyone? No thanks.

  3. May be counterproductive and make more litigation by phr2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The idea of streamlining the legal process sounds nice from an efficiency point of view but misses the purpose of a lot of court procedures. More efficiency doesn't mean people will spend less money getting the courts to resolve their disputes. It means that on the same amount of money, they'll be able to litigate more.

    Part of the reason for all the mandatory personal court appearances in the various stages of a lawsuit is to make sure both sides continue to incur legal fees every step of the way. That encourages them to settle their differences and get their cases out of the courts. It actually works fairly well in practice. An awful lot of lawsuits are bogus and the current system is set up to make the litigants ask themselves "is it really worth this hassle and expense?".

    If you think we have too many lawsuits now, imagine what it would be like if litigating was easier.

  4. State funds cybercourt, cuts 6 judges by mESSDan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A related story found at the top right of the michigan cybercourt site can be found here.

    Cut six judges so that one judge can basically test something new? Is that dumb or what?

    --

    -- Dan
  5. What about privacy? by nurightshu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This raises a lot of concerns with me about the sanctity of off-the-record conversations in legal proceedings. How can one side ensure that the conversation they're having in "virtual chambers" with the judge and the opposing counsel is not being recorded?

    Don't get me started on man-in-the-middle attacks...

    Just my $0.45 (it would have been $0.02, but Microsoft stuffed my PayPal account).

    --
    They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
  6. lack of ready standards by bobaferret · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Putting courts online is what I do. The biggest problems that we encounter are a lack of electronic standards. There?s legalXML and others, but most of the are not finished yet, or not broad ranging enough to truly useful. Michigan is by far and away in the lead in putting things online though. They have the benefit of an in house development system. So that $200K+ that you saw is mostly staying in the state. Most of the other states out there use private contractors, which work nothing alike, nor is there a spirit of cooperation. Which makes developing standards a pain. After a while most courts tend to adapt their ?internal standards? to the system that they use. Which means that when you get right down to it, two counties right next to each other will use complete different means of case tracking. In some areas such as civil cases. There are no standards in the way a case is actually moved through the court. And how dispositions are recorded much less followed to insure that they have been satisfied. It?s a system designed by lawyers that has been allowed to adapt and change unchecked for 200 years. The legal code is full of kludge. It may never get organized enough.

    sorry for ther ramble
    -jj-