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
Physical presence is just better for some things.
OK,
- B
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
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.
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
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 don't suppose teleconferencing even criminal trials would be too far off, but even if it is I am sure there will be a provision that will allow the defendants (particularly in large, capital cases or jury trials) to appear in court rather than be sentenced by some 1.50/hr sweatshop judge from Taiwan when the government starts outsourcing judges from other countries to further keep costs down. Just remember you heard it here first. ;)
How long will it be until punks start running bots to improve their chances in cybercourt? PunkBusters may have a new market in this...
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.
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.
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?