Slashdot Mirror
Michigan Creates Cybercourt
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.
That's great for the lawyers. Now if they can just get some judges on the circuits who have some understanding of technology.
there is little need for appearances in person in most cases.. perhaps maybe in identity theft trials it would be a good idea though..
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
I agree, it seems as if this idea has its heart in the right place, but (like most of John Engler's ideas) it is simply going to be too complicated to be worth the involved effort. Ahh, Michigan. First in impractical new ideas. I feel a twinkle of pride for my state.
Well, isn't that justice for you. Create laws and systems involving technology, wait for them to fail miserably enough to make an embarrassment of the government, and then get rid of them. Now when will that happen for the DMCA?
"Anonymous cowards are just K-whores afraid of their accounts being modded down." - Bob the O (me)
Actually a good idea - the article states that it's for business disputes and does not involve a jury. In the past year Slashdot's been filled with articles on the clash between the legal world and the technological world. In all too many cases, by the time the legal system has rendered a verdict, and it's been delayed, and appealed, (and delayed some more, and appealed, and ...), the whole case has become moot (DOJ vs. M$, [RI|MP]AA vs progress, patent disputes, etc.). This could be the beginning of speeding up the courts and bringing them into the 21st century (or at least the 20th century).
[Insert pithy quote here]
Not sure where the bizarre comments about AI and automating the court process came from ... but this just seems like a logical and justifiable extension of the current use of remote attendence at hearings. I'm not sure if it is the same in the US or not, but in the UK at least it is possible for witnesses to give evidence from outside the courtroom by TV in cases where intimidation of the witness is likely - usually in rape or chile abuse cases. The court can see the witness, but the witness can not see, and therefore is less influenced by, the courtroom and especially the defendent.
Hogsback
The court won't have a jury and will handle only business disputes involving at least $25,000. Cases could be removed to the circuit court, and decisions could be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.
In other words, it is for business litigation only, and if any party doesn't want to use the cyber court they can file a motion and move to a regular court.
This seems similar to small claims court....special rules to make things easy in a narrow but common set of circumstances. And if one party isn't satisfied with the way the special court works, they can move to a regular court.
All we need now is Cyberjails and Cyberbaliffs.
It would work like this: Say you have a dispute over an eBay transaction with somebody who lives 3000 miles away on the other side of the country. You go to your local [main] post office and file a small claims case. The post office serves the defendant for you by certified mail. On the day set for hearing, you go back to your post office and you are sent to a Federal Small Claims hearing room which has a camera, two video screens, and a flatbed scanner. One video monitor is teleconferenced to the defendant's local post office and shows the defendant, the other screen shows the face of a Federal small claims judge or magistrate (who could be physically located anywhere). The judge hears both sides and renders a decision just like in a live small claims court. The court's judgment could be enforced nationwide. Any documents that need to be shown to the judge are placed on the scanner. You set the jurisdictional limit at say $5000, same as in a California small claims court. No lawyers allowed, just like in a real small claims court (unless one of the parties happens to be a lawyer). With a system like this, it would be convenient and speedy to litigate your garden variety eBay-type dispute as well as lots of other interstate disputes that are inconvenient to hear in real courts 'cause of the distance involved. This would also prevent big corporations from taking advantage of consumers with those pesky "forum selection" contract clauses that wipe-out consumers' legal rights by forcing them to sue in some distant forum like King County, Wash.
Once the right to face your accuser meant something. Our nation was forged by men who journeyed for days to debate one another in the flesh, about the ways in which our government should take shape. The founding documents of this country were forged in the crucible of human interaction, not by pixellated images on glowing monitors! Soon, jurors will muse over the fates of their fellow human beings from the comfort of their homes talking with one another in "chat rooms", never having seen in person the poor souls on whom they sit in judgement. Life-or-death decisions will be as simple as a Slashdot poll.
Anyone who has experienced the gripping film Twelve Angry Men will know in their hearts the importance of human interaction in the process if deliberative justice. We as citizens of this country need to take a hard look at what's happening here. We must take back our irreplacable Third Estate from the hands of greedy corporations more concerned with lining their own pockets than with the true meaning of justice.
My first reaction (to "cybercourt") was that it would be awsome to have have a place to go when you need a judge that has a clue what a web link is, and possibly even (dare I suggest it?) able to understand source code.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I would like to see this cybercourt idea evolve into a system with sufficient AI to listen to legal claims, ask questions, even render judgements in simple cases. Or a cyber lawyer smart enough to compete with F. Lee Bailey. Hey, it works with chess! How about a legal harassment/frivolous lawsuit filter that all cases would have to be pass before burdening the human-driven system. Even just a publicly available AI lawyer that answers legal questions reliably would be a real boon to the common citizen, who already paid to get the laws written and can't afford to pay a consultant to explain them.
El Paso County Texas has been doing this for several years (since '96 I believe) using FVC teleconferencing system. See the this document for the proposal. They use it for criminal pre-trial hearings because of the distance from the jail to the courthouse. They also use it within the sheriffs department as well.
It has always bothered me when people confuse justice and the law. Justice is a subjective concept, something that takes into account emotional ideas and uses subjective deduction to arrive at a conclusion. For the most part the United State's 'Justice' system does little more than interpret laws with a disregard for 'justice'. The legislators have enacted laws that severely restrict Judge's ability to prescribe just punishments or awards for nearly any case that comes before them. How many of you think casual drug law violators should be sent to prison for years? How many think that 'hackers' should be held without bond? These are examples of our 'Justice' system turning a blind eye towards the true meaning of the very word that defines it.
To assume that an AI could distribute justice, is akin to assuming that an AI could teach, or parent. Yes, and AI can help, but the true responsibility should ALWAYS remain with a judge, a human being that can weigh the subjective circumstances and look at the whole picture, not just that that is shown in their courtroom.
What if it is just turtles all the way down?