Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.fuzzy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Seen on CNN: SOLOMON--Computer Finds OJ Guilty
Message-ID: <jqbDLpDs1.5wq@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <shankarDLCHv6.2r7@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 1996 20:48:00 GMT
Lines: 60
Sender: jqb@netcom14.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:36981 comp.ai.fuzzy:6518

In article <shankarDLCHv6.2r7@netcom.com>,
Shankar Ramakrishnan <shankar@netcom.com> wrote:

>expert who had to retract the figures he had given earlier (he admitted
>that he had made a mistake in his calculation). Also, answering questions
>like "Did Mark Fuhrman plant the glove?" is not so much logic as it is
>about other factors that are highly subjective, depending on whom you
>ask. Although there is *factually* a yes/no answer to this question,
>given the evidence, one can only make guesses like "probably", "most
>certainly", etc. And if Solomon got it right (most *believe* it got it
>right), it could have been just plain lucky. 

Although I in no way want to defend the use of an AI (especially one about
which we know nothing; of course Sololon *could* have been lucky; duh.  The
question is, what *is* its analysis?) in deciding criminal cases, especially
capital cases, the logic above is very weak, and perhaps we could at least use
analysis from AI's to better educate ourselves about our errors.  Although
what we know about Fuhrman makes likely his desire or intent to plant the
glove, that alone, contrary to the oh so effective O.J. defense strategy, is
not enough.  There are factual issues that influence the likelihood that he
was in fact able to obtain the glove, prepare the glove, and plant the glove.
These factors are overridden for many by the out-of-proportion stress placed
upon Fuhrman's attitudes.  The evidence indicates that, at most, Fuhrman moved
a bloody glove from Nicole's residence to O.J.'s to beef up the case.  But
even this nefarious activity, significant in a factual finding about
*Fuhrman*'s crimes, is rather insignificant in determining *O.J.*'s guilt.
The glove was his by overwhelming evidence (Nicole bought it for him; there
were few of that size; it was the size she bought, regardless of any
deformations, latex undergloves, or acting that may have made it difficult to
get it on; there was expert testimony to this effect, and there was video tape
of O.J. wearing identical, poorly fitting gloves at sporting events).  And in
any case, there was sufficient other evidence to find Simpson guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt even totally ignoring the glove.  Thus, people's feeling that
Furhrman's racism is relevant is not being placed into proper perspective
within the entire logical framework.  Had the glove never been found at all,
there would be *less* controversy regarding the Simpson's guilt.  This
underlies the irrationality of the human process, and an analysis by an AI
might help people to disassociate emotionally and see these errors clearly.

>Computers used for legal purposes should be solely restricted to logical
>deductions based on evidence, not speculating the credibilty of the sources
>themselves. That is what the jury system is there for.

Computers could guide us as to the credibility of testimony based upon its
logical consistency.  As for judgements based upon demeanor, neither humans
nor AI's seem very good at it, though I'd currently give the edge to humans.
But we don't actually know (that is, it wasn't posted) what Solomon's
responsibilities were in this regard.  There was some mention of lie
detectors; it is unfortunate if they were actually used, since they are well
known to be highly unreliable.

>Btw, what next? Voting machines that automatically decide on whom to vote for?

Given the current remarkable correlation between the amount spent and the
outcome, it couldn't be much worse than what we have now.  If the machine
votes for campaign finance reform, then I'd gladly turn the process back over
to humans for another shot.
-- 
<J Q B>

