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.
this is only for Corprate law. in cases like this, the coperations do not realy need a jury. if both agree to go this rout, they can benefit by having an expedited process....though, I think englers vision is a bit like regan's pie in the sky starwars. the reality is going to be much less than the Idea.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
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?
Physical presence is just better for some things.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
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.
Michigan Cybercourt has a website, which was not linked from the slashdot story.
The page can be accessed at: here
and for all of you copy 'n pasters: http://www.michigancybercourt.net/
...that lawyers can now submit their briefs in their briefs? ;-)
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]
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.
Will be a suit raised by a failed dotcom that has a patent that gives them exclusive rights to the online provision of justice.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
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
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
Since I understand most documentation is now requested on a floppy or CD-ROM, why not go ahead and file it electronically?
OTOH, pleading a case before an electronic judge sounds like a loser to me. When you are in front of someone, you can read them -- what do they like or dislike about what you're saying, what do they find persuasive -- and adjust the brief in real time. I've yet to see that kind of instantaneous feedback in a videoconference. May as well do it all in written submissions, phone in and ask, "do you have any questions?"
"Old man yells at systemd"
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.
I can see it now. You're making that last appeal for clemency from the Governor by email when the system crashes. You get back on-line only to discover that your licence agreement for Microsoft .COURT is only good for 4 appeals. You're still downloading the linux alternative KJustice when the warden reboots your nervous system.
I guess when I get an illegal operation on my computer I must go to Cybercourt to attend a hearing on it.
Lawyers can make appearances by video conference... hmmm, this seems a little inefectual with regard to comonly accepted forms of legal argumentation. Granted, at the moment this forum is only available for certain pretrial motions and delivery of briefs but this opens a door which will lead to full trials being conducted in this sort of forum. A great deal of the usefulness of a lawyer is his/her ability to be persuasive on an indevidual level almost more than on a legal level. Body language and other behaviors have a significant impact on this effectiveness and videoconferencing -while better than audio conferencing- precludes use of numerous argumentitive tools normaly available to jurists.
Certainly this will be of lesser impact in bench trials but what will come of this medium when someone decides to hold a jury trial in this medium? We can only hope the technology takes significant strides before some judge decides to conduct a jury trial this way.
--CTH
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
All rise (where ever you are).
Michigan 1st cyber-district court now in session.
The Honorable Max Headroom presiding.
"You may-may-may be seated."
Jonathan
In fact, these judges will have an unusually good grasp of technology and will make excellent decisions on technical issues. Among the candidates there are even a few who know how to turn on the light in a room.
Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.
Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
How long will it be until punks start running bots to improve their chances in cybercourt? PunkBusters may have a new market in this...
1. Bored cyber-jurors alt-tabbing between the trial and pornography.
2. Mistrials caused by BSOD
3. Microsoft anti-trust cases being presided over by 'MS Justice XP' software.
Going back to point 1 though... Is anybody else looking forward to jury duty?
:)
New AOL Slogan: "You've got jail!"
...oOOo..'(_)'..oOOo...
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.
There was a Max Headroom episode similar to this. I can still hear the one lawyer whining to the video-judge "But you haven't even evaluated my floppy disk!"
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
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?
That soon I can appear in court as the defendant by way of tele-conference and then serve my time in jail the same way?
I'm all over that!
Goran
Carpe Scrotum - The only way to deal with your competition.
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-
How soon until sufficient AI exists to automate the process
Well...the AI for the way cyber-cases are currently resolved would be pretty easy.
public int decideCase(Plaintiff plaintiff, Defendant defendant)
{
if(plaintiff.getNetWorth() > defendant.getNetWorth())
{
return(Judgement.PLAINTIFF);
}
else
{
return(Judgement.DEFENDANT);
}
}
Incidently, this AI will also work for WIPO disputes as well. There's even rumors of this code being used in Washington by lawmakers when trying to determine what legislation to pass.
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"