[ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment (& CS techniques - Security and/or Privacy )
ka.aly at luxsci.net
Sun Sep 2 23:15:48 UTC 2007
I've been following this since it started. I feel that a murderer should be
punished to death in the easiest possible way (e.g. lethal injection), once
it is proven for very sure that he/she has done so deliberately and under no
external effects; for two reasons: 1) It is a relief to the victim's family
unless they choose otherwise; and 2) If I were to choose, being the
murderer, I'd rather go now/then than spend 20 years in jail. About therapy,
I think it may work in certain sick cases (there are sick souls that could
be treated why not, and there are evil souls that will not change, and there
are those whose life circumstances made them go wrong way and they need
social rehabilitation - every case is different).
This is my entry to how effective is the overall current justice system. And
the ever unresolved question about the tradeoffs between personal privacy
and community security. Do any computer or IT people see a role of
algorithms helping the justice system to decide (for a start; since
real-life AI is a bit far ahead). What I mean for example, consider
obtaining a search warrant. How difficult is it to write some code that
could 'assist' the decision making. First, it will perform preliminary
information analysis. Second, if it's open implementation, it will be
possible to a large technical population to review it and ensure it works as
intended/declared and for the benefit of justice. And third, within a
digital world, it can ensure that a court order of privacy invasion for a
suspect individual will actually expire; provided it began, through the use
of digital certificates to be provided and revoked in time by court to law
enforcement. The last of course requires that default electronic
communication be secured, and be broken only using a court digital
certificate. This can be as frequent as the low issuing entities would
decide according to existing situation (exceptional, less exceptional,
regular). An innocent whose privacy was broken deserves to be advised about
it at some point.
Beyond this, any computer literate person would confirm that open source
code is most reliable because it had been reviewed by the expert public.
Same applies to an open source algorithm that is designed to support the
justice system deciding what to do with a suspect, a person in trial, or an
indicted person and let that be an advisory input for trial.
Unlike few people may think, computers and human minds don't work the same
way. Computers are structured crunching speed machines and minds are pattern
learning neural machines. They are complementary (until neural network
computing make it to market and yet it will be v. hard to mimic the brain).
Why does law enforcement, or as a whole the justice system use computers
only for data recording purposes. What about the huge analytic power that
can be made presentable to humans to evaluate and judge. I don't think any
final sentence should be produced by a machine with the current state of the
art, or may be never. But speaking preliminary and analytic support,
incorporating digital technology can potentially resolve many issues and
cases where the society disagrees about how just the outcome was.
Greatest software technologies came out of open source because it is
auditable. And that's much like digital democracy. Transparency does not
compromise rule of law -- it rather enhances it. Sadly, digital technology
is being consumed for many irrelevant but sellable applications before it is
being considered to support a sound social infrastructure. And what's more
relevant than justice...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathisp at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2007 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] free-will, determinism, crime and punishment.
> On 28/08/07, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was reading this, and had a hazy recollection of learning in
>> undergrad psych that sociopaths are actually made worse by traditional
>> therapy (it helps them learn how to fake being normal).
> There's little evidence that "therapy" helps with anything, let alone
> fundamentally changing the personality you were born with.
> Stathis Papaioannou
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
More information about the extropy-chat