[UK] Man cleared of rape by one judge. Is ordered to pay compensation by another
35 replies, posted
Imagine thinking that the burden of proof is undesirable
You're misrepresenting me. I never said that. The 'burden of proof' is never 100%, so it is reasonable to have a debate on where that threshold is for a civil court case in comparison with a criminal court case.
If it means a man can be aquitted in one place, and convicted in another, perhaps that's indicative of it already being too low.
The justice system is run by people and people does not work objectively. People have been exonerated for crimes of which they were previously found guilty and found guilty on crimes of which they were previously found not guilty. There's no way to run a totally objective justice system, even if it was done with AI, as AI is written by people. Even criminal courts often overturn rulings, and there are probably far more they got incorrect and never address.
The preconception that AI must be at least as flawed as its creators is false. Every organized system is built to overcome the shortcomings of the individuals who compose it. That's why the rule of law exists. We take our better judgement and abstract it into a system that's as isolated from our shortcomings as possible. The same principle applies to machines. People are severely limited. The only hypothetical limiting factors of machines are the quality of their inputs and the quality of the law, factors which also limit human judges and juries. Justice systems might remain flawed, but machines could systematically strip away a lot of the biases and cognitive faults that drive wrong verdicts.
That said, the legal system should be thoroughly consistent. If one court cannot decisively prove guilt, then the case should be closed permanently.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.