Time: Fri Jul 04 04:34:30 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA21476;
	Fri, 4 Jul 1997 04:35:07 -0700 (MST)
	by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id EAA09813;
	Fri, 4 Jul 1997 04:35:00 -0700 (MST)
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 1997 04:33:15 -0700
To: amadeus@adnc.com
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: judges & computers (fwd)
References: <>

I'm not imposing anything on people.
I do want them to appreciate the
immense power that derives from having
a large text database, and a fast
computer to search that text, and
a laser-printer to produce perfect

/s/ Paul Mitchell

At 08:26 PM 7/3/97 -0800, you wrote:
>Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote:
>> the solution is to put powerful computers
>> into the hands of people who understand
>> the application of fundamental principles
>> THAT is the solution and
>> THAT is one of the goals of the Supreme Law School
>> /s/ Paul Mitchell
>> http://www.supremelaw.com
>> At 04:49 PM 7/3/97 -0700, you wrote:
>> >
>> >->  SearchNet's   SNETNEWS   Mailing List
>> >
>> >When I visited Omaha and Lincoln, Nebraska ca. 1990 to investigate a case
>> >which subsequently became "The Franklin Coverup" (title of book by
>> >lawyer, John DeCamp from Nebraska) I noticed there were Computer Kiosks
>> >in the Shopping Malls. They served as visitor guides re serves, maps etc.
>> >I think we should have a plain language law code on Public Computer
>> >Kiosks like this in all Ftr_Cities.
>> >FWP.
>> >
>> >On Thu, 3 Jul 1997, Ricardo Guibourg wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>      Claire Hill has made some interesting questions.
>> >> In what respects might computers do a better job than judges?
>> >>      When we know exactly how to make a decision, no matter how much
>> complicated it is, a computer can apply the criteria and find a solution in
>> a faster, cheaper and transparent way.
>> >>
>> >> In what respects would they do a worse job?
>> >>      When we do not know exactly how to do what we can do, we depend on
>> implicit, hidden, changing or unknown criteria. Computers would be lost in
>> that jungle.
>> >>
>> >> How would we program the computers?
>> >>      We would have to find out our actual criteria and make them
>> That is the difficult part of the work. The rest is only a complicated and
>> specialized routine.
>> >>
>> >> How could they learn from "experience"?
>Your discussion on computers couldn't possibly measure the motives and
>results that a court would give. The entire history and psychological
>makeup of the judging parties would have to be made known by the public
>being judged by such an automated system. It would be the worst thing to
>lay on a free people a la 1984... Orwell re-visited.
>The first thing I learned in litigation studies was "NEVER trust the
>judge." Someone always owns them as well as the attorneys... and it
>isn't the litigants.
>What era of law could you impose on people... fairly?
>Enjoy your notes,
>- Richard

Paul Andrew Mitchell                 : Counselor at Law, federal witness
B.A., Political Science, UCLA;  M.S., Public Administration, U.C. Irvine

tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.2 on 586 CPU
website: http://www.supremelaw.com   : visit the Supreme Law Library now
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this

As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal.
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.]


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail