From: Dave Long (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Mon Jul 31 2000 - 13:50:44 PDT
I've had several interesting replies:
Swift: fudging is conserved in the justice system: when discretion
is removed from sentencing, it reappears upstream
Bolcer: automation is needed to avoid human error and bias
Leitl: wetware is needed to avoid automated gigo
all of which are interesting, but none of which addressed my main
point: if everyone agrees on the facts of the case A, B, and there
is a consensus in the society that a verdict ought to be a function
of those facts alone, and not other information C or D, then having
published decision tables (which all parties can evaluate) is a way
to ensure that the verdict which results is really f(A,B) instead
of f(A,B,phase of the moon).
Perhaps an analogy to the inspection station would help:
A) there is a table with dice at the station. As you reach the
head of the line, the inspector rolls the dice. If they come
up snake-eyes, you go to the "fine tooth comb" line.
B) there is a podium at the station. As you reach the head of
the line, the inspector rolls dice behind it. If he says they
came up snake-eyes, you go to the "fine tooth comb" line.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jul 31 2000 - 13:43:14 PDT