SCIENCE said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cymek said:

I thought of AI as an aid to a magistrate or judge
Not to make decisions but to check the outcome is lawful.
At times sentences by magistrates or judges are illegal as they don’t follow legislation.
This means they have to go back to court to be ammended
Our prosecutors are good at picking this up and informing the magistrates the sentence is illegal
They aren’t always there though and its also somewhat intimidating to try and correct them

Ok thanks for that information Cymek.

It’s interesting seeing how things work.

But I’ve never been happy with juries, I see it as a weakness.

But that’s how it is.

pretty sure if the purpose of a jury is to decide whether an allegation is proven to a given standard, then that purpose would be best served by having intelligences, natural or otherwise, trained in logic and confined to ivory towers

I’m seeking juries having better understanding in ethics and logic and better understanding in how emotions can affect their decision-making.