Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News

Michigan Creates Cybercourt 128

Posted by michael from the justice-unplugged dept.
Boone^ writes: "Michigan's Governor John Engler today signed a bill that would create a virtual state court where lawyers could file briefs and make appearances by teleconference. The state Supreme Court will set the rules in the coming months, and District or circuit court judges will be assigned for 3-year terms. How soon until sufficient AI exists to automate the process, and mobile justice can be handed out Judge Dredd style?" We did a story about this when it was first proposed.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michigan Creates Cybercourt More

Michigan Creates Cybercourt

Comments Filter:

  • don't fret about due proccess...... (Score:3, Informative)

    by the_2nd_coming ( 444906 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2002 @11:46PM (#2814738) Homepage
    this is only for Corprate law. in cases like this, the coperations do not realy need a jury. if both agree to go this rout, they can benefit by having an expedited process....though, I think englers vision is a bit like regan's pie in the sky starwars. the reality is going to be much less than the Idea.
    • So does this mean that Max Headroom could be counsel for the defendant or what? He seems like a dot-com corporate type.
    • Lawyers can make appearances by video conference... hmmm, this seems a little inefectual with regard to comonly accepted forms of legal argumentation. Granted, at the moment this forum is only available for certain pretrial motions and delivery of briefs but this opens a door which will lead to full trials being conducted in this sort of forum. A great deal of the usefulness of a lawyer is his/her ability to be persuasive on an indevidual level almost more than on a legal level. Body language and other behaviors have a significant impact on this effectiveness and videoconferencing -while better than audio conferencing- precludes use of numerous argumentitive tools normaly available to jurists.

      Certainly this will be of lesser impact in bench trials but what will come of this medium when someone decides to hold a jury trial in this medium? We can only hope the technology takes significant strides before some judge decides to conduct a jury trial this way.

      --CTH
    • this is only for Corprate [sic] law

      And that's a damn good thing. Just imagine if individual criminal laws like the DMCA could be enforced in a venue like this. Keeping in mind that it would probably be much easier to get litigation started in an online venue than in an actual courtroom, the easiest way to explain the result would be to say that the court was still 'only for Corporate law'...but Corporate Law would take on a whole different meaning.

  • we need tech-informed judges... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    That's great for the lawyers. Now if they can just get some judges on the circuits who have some understanding of technology.
    • Does reading emails qualify as having an understanding of technology? Or better yet, does reading an email that your law school intern printed out?
    • In fact, these judges will have an unusually good grasp of technology and will make excellent decisions on technical issues. Among the candidates there are even a few who know how to turn on the light in a room.

      Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

  • About time... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Breakfast Pants ( 323698 )
    there is little need for appearances in person in most cases.. perhaps maybe in identity theft trials it would be a good idea though..

    • Re:About time... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by b0r0din ( 304712 )
      My father actually works in the District court in Michigan, and what they are proposing isn't much different than what they currently have. While it's not cybercourt, a good deal of his court cases (particularly criminal cases) already use video sentencing for incarcerated prisoners to keep the cost of having to move prisoners around, etc., and depending on his scheduling he will usually have weekly periods in which he does nothing but video sentencing.

      I don't suppose teleconferencing even criminal trials would be too far off, but even if it is I am sure there will be a provision that will allow the defendants (particularly in large, capital cases or jury trials) to appear in court rather than be sentenced by some 1.50/hr sweatshop judge from Taiwan when the government starts outsourcing judges from other countries to further keep costs down. Just remember you heard it here first. ;)

  • Oy... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RareHeintz ( 244414 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2002 @11:47PM (#2814743) Homepage Journal
    This sounds cool, but I think there are going to be problems with it, if not right off the bat, then sometime down the road. Even with crypto, digital signatures, &c, there's huge potential for say, tweaking someone's plea, tampering with documentary evidence, and if (as the blurb suggests) a sufficiently spiffy AI ever comes to be, then even the telepresence of a lawyer or client could be spoofed.

    Physical presence is just better for some things.

    OK,
    - B

    • Yeah you're right. Not long before you have teams of profesionally-employed hackers working behind-the-scenes to change court records (Not as if this doesn't already happen, it will just become a lot more obvious and enticing to those who would think of it.)...

      If it can be hacked, it will be hacked. And if it's on the net, it can be hacked.

    • Re:Oy... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by God Takeru ( 409424 )
      I agree, it seems as if this idea has its heart in the right place, but (like most of John Engler's ideas) it is simply going to be too complicated to be worth the involved effort. Ahh, Michigan. First in impractical new ideas. I feel a twinkle of pride for my state.

      Well, isn't that justice for you. Create laws and systems involving technology, wait for them to fail miserably enough to make an embarrassment of the government, and then get rid of them. Now when will that happen for the DMCA?

    • Re:Oy... (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Too late.. already done in Victoria Australia.
      The PERIN court, designed to process parking fines takes this
      step one better - it automatically finds people GUILTY. A court with no magistrates of Judges, just a catchy name to give the
      appearance of justice.
      In other world firsts, VIctoria incorporated, has delegated its power to a PRIVATE company a road tolll company, that can also find people guilty.
      Face facts, no way would the OJ findings happen via video monitor.

  • However.... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chronos2266 ( 514349 )
    This will never replace the need for real lawyers, and this may even put some clients at a disadvantage. Body language means a lot when convincing a jury or judge, you just dont get that from a TV Screen.

    • Re:However.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CSieber ( 548526 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2002 @11:54PM (#2814762) Homepage
      However, maybe it shouldn't. A judge in these cases is supposed to be able to decide based on the facts alone. I regard the fact that body language and other "lawyerly tricks" can sway any decision as quite unfortunate. I think that if this can eliminate those things its a positive rather than a negative. Obviously real AI is a long long way off, and that is the only thing that could possible replace a human lawyer, much less a judge. Moral programming anyone? No thanks.

      • IANAP, but I don't think writing an AI whatsit to emulate a lawyer would be all that tough—and I went to law school, so I have some idea from whence I speak.

        Hell, I could probably work up the logic using JavaScript:

        /*requires salesman and IRS agent objects to be present */

        function Lawyer(percentage,rate) {
        this.contingencyFee = percentage;
        this.rate = rate;
        this.sue = function(client,defendant,claim,court) {
        this.case = new Object();
        this.case.atTrial = false;
        this.case.court = court
        this.case.damages = defendant.netWorth
        var win = true;
        while (case.damages > 0) {
        if (!this.case.atTrial) {
        win = defendant.listen(this.lie()); //.listen() returns true if he buys it
        if (win = true) {
        this.takeMoney(defen dant,this.case.damages);
        this.collectFee(clie nt,win);
        return;
        } else if (claim = true) {
        this.case.atTrial = true;
        } else {
        this.case.damages = this.case.damages - 1000;
        }
        } else {
        win = judge.listen(this.lie());
        if (win = true) {
        this.takeMoney(defen dant,this.case.damages);
        this.collectFee(clie nt,win);
        return;
        } else if (court.highest == false) {
        this.appeal();
        } else {
        win = false;
        this.collectFee(clie nt,win);
        return;
        }
        }
        }
        win = false;
        this.collectFee(client,win);
        }
        this.defend = function(client,judge) {
        var win = judge.listen(this.lie());
        this.collectFee(client,win);
        }
        this.collectFee = function(client,win) {
        if (win) {
        this.takeMoney(client,client.net Worth/2) //leave some for the next time
        } else {
        this.takeMoney(client,client.net Worth) //better get it all now
        }
        }
        this.appeal = function() {;
        this.case.court =+ 1;
        this.sue(this.case.client,this.case.de fendant,this.case.claim,this.case.court);
        this.lie = salesman.talk;
        this.takeMoney = irsAgent.collectTax;
        }
      • I regard the fact that body language and other "lawyerly tricks" can sway any decision as quite unfortunate.

        It cuts both ways. Sometimes it's harder to deceive people when it's in person.

        -

    • Re:However.... (Score:2, Informative)

      by dkemist ( 199970 )
      I think I disagree. First, the article states that this court will only handle civil cases of 25k plus, so this won't be your typical criminal jury case. And second, I think this is one of the best ways to get an impartial judge. There is little room for racial, ethinic, sexual, age (etc.) discrimination, when all the court sees are briefs delivered via email.

      We may all hope that judges don't exhibit the same discrimination as the rest of us, but it's almost part of human nature. De-humanizing the process slightly can help eliminate that.

  • Their site... (Score:5, Informative)

    by metatruk ( 315048 ) on Wednesday January 09, 2002 @11:58PM (#2814778)
    Michigan Cybercourt has a website, which was not linked from the slashdot story.
    The page can be accessed at: here [michigancybercourt.net]
    and for all of you copy 'n pasters: http://www.michigancybercourt.net/
  • Progress in court automation will of course continue until kR4Ck3rS juDg3 3v3rYtH1n9 4nD Ru13 tH3 w0r1D.

    Give a man a fish and he eats for one day. Teach him how to fish, and though he'll eat for a lifetime, he'll call you a miser for not giving him your fish.

  • Does this mean... (Score:4, Funny)

    by moncyb ( 456490 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:03AM (#2814797) Journal

    ...that lawyers can now submit their briefs in their briefs? ;-)

  • Virtual Court (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rlp ( 11898 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:03AM (#2814801)
    Actually a good idea - the article states that it's for business disputes and does not involve a jury. In the past year Slashdot's been filled with articles on the clash between the legal world and the technological world. In all too many cases, by the time the legal system has rendered a verdict, and it's been delayed, and appealed, (and delayed some more, and appealed, and ...), the whole case has become moot (DOJ vs. M$, [RI|MP]AA vs progress, patent disputes, etc.). This could be the beginning of speeding up the courts and bringing them into the 21st century (or at least the 20th century).

  • May be counterproductive and make more litigation (Score:4, Insightful)

    by phr2 ( 545169 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:06AM (#2814808)
    The idea of streamlining the legal process sounds nice from an efficiency point of view but misses the purpose of a lot of court procedures. More efficiency doesn't mean people will spend less money getting the courts to resolve their disputes. It means that on the same amount of money, they'll be able to litigate more.

    Part of the reason for all the mandatory personal court appearances in the various stages of a lawsuit is to make sure both sides continue to incur legal fees every step of the way. That encourages them to settle their differences and get their cases out of the courts. It actually works fairly well in practice. An awful lot of lawsuits are bogus and the current system is set up to make the litigants ask themselves "is it really worth this hassle and expense?".

    If you think we have too many lawsuits now, imagine what it would be like if litigating was easier.
  • District or circuit court judges will be assigned for three-year terms and will be specially trained.

    "Ok your honor, *this* is a mouse. Now click. Again.. Good. Now click again. Good. again. faster.. Good. Now, AGAIN! FASTER! CLICK! FASTER! FASTER! CLICK YOU BASTARD! FASTER! THOSE LAWYERS WILL MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOUR COURTROOM IF YOU CAN'T CLICK FASTER THAN THAT!" ;)

  • The first case... (Score:3, Funny)

    by xixax ( 44677 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:06AM (#2814810)
    Will be a suit raised by a failed dotcom that has a patent that gives them exclusive rights to the online provision of justice.

    Xix.
  • The court is expected to cost $250,000 to $500,000.

    Makes you wonder what kind of system they'll be running, and who would set it up for them. Seems like a great place for open source, but something about that $500,000 makes me think otherwise...
  • Tom Shanks stars as a happy-go-lucky, go-getting armed robber who starts stalking a resident in his apartment block when a poorly configured Judicial mailserver spams pardons to the inhabitants of a maximum security penitentiary...

    Xix.

  • State funds cybercourt, cuts 6 judges (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mESSDan ( 302670 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:10AM (#2814827) Homepage

    A related story found at the top right of the michigan cybercourt [michigancybercourt.net] site can be found here [detnews.com].

    Cut six judges so that one judge can basically test something new? Is that dumb or what?

  • What about privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nurightshu ( 517038 ) <rightshu@cox.net> on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:12AM (#2814833) Homepage Journal

    This raises a lot of concerns with me about the sanctity of off-the-record conversations in legal proceedings. How can one side ensure that the conversation they're having in "virtual chambers" with the judge and the opposing counsel is not being recorded?

    Don't get me started on man-in-the-middle attacks...

    Just my $0.45 (it would have been $0.02, but Microsoft stuffed my PayPal account). [slashdot.org]

  • Since I understand most documentation is now requested on a floppy or CD-ROM, why not go ahead and file it electronically?

    OTOH, pleading a case before an electronic judge sounds like a loser to me. When you are in front of someone, you can read them -- what do they like or dislike about what you're saying, what do they find persuasive -- and adjust the brief in real time. I've yet to see that kind of instantaneous feedback in a videoconference. May as well do it all in written submissions, phone in and ask, "do you have any questions?"
    • > pleading a case before an electronic judge sounds like a loser to me

      Well, they say she's got the wit of Max Headroom [maxheadroom.com] with the looks of Annanova [ananova.com]

      erm *cough* ba-dum-ching.
      • They actually had computer judges and computer courts in Max Headroom...The police would escort the 'Blanks' or whoever into the courtroom, and this TV screen would light up and give almost instant judgement...I think it appeared in more than one episode.

  • Currently the court system is truly straining and something definitely needs to be done to ease the burden. Of course this could also backfire leaving a lot of openings about mistrials etc....(I am guessing, IANAL) I would think they should classify court cases by impact:

    Low level...tried online
    medium level...can be tried online if both paties consent
    High level....only in person

    I hope this works out well.

    Cheers
  • ... cybercourt cybersex. Kinky.
  • - Punishment: Your program loops infinitely out of control.

    - Fine $$$: Get your RAM taken away.

    - Death Sentence: Blue Screen.

    Oh wait, windows comes with all three.

  • AI & current practice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by hogsback ( 548721 )
    Not sure where the bizarre comments about AI and automating the court process came from ... but this just seems like a logical and justifiable extension of the current use of remote attendence at hearings. I'm not sure if it is the same in the US or not, but in the UK at least it is possible for witnesses to give evidence from outside the courtroom by TV in cases where intimidation of the witness is likely - usually in rape or chile abuse cases. The court can see the witness, but the witness can not see, and therefore is less influenced by, the courtroom and especially the defendent.

  • give it a rest... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by truesaer ( 135079 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:19AM (#2814857) Homepage
    no one is being tried for murder here. All regular rules of evidence, etc. will apply. This just makes it easier and cheaper for the legal process to function. Quote the article:

    The court won't have a jury and will handle only business disputes involving at least $25,000. Cases could be removed to the circuit court, and decisions could be appealed to the state Court of Appeals.


    In other words, it is for business litigation only, and if any party doesn't want to use the cyber court they can file a motion and move to a regular court.

    This seems similar to small claims court....special rules to make things easy in a narrow but common set of circumstances. And if one party isn't satisfied with the way the special court works, they can move to a regular court.

  • This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "circuit" court. :)

  • now... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AnimeFreak ( 223792 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @12:29AM (#2814879) Homepage
    All we need now is Cyberjails and Cyberbaliffs.
  • How soon until sufficient AI exists to automate the process, and mobile justice can be handed out Judge Dredd style?

    This is a great example of either nerd-paranoia or journalistic exaggeration. All the "cybercourt" is doing is taking technology solutions from business and applying them to bureaucracy. The court will not handle [detnews.com] criminal or civil cases, only business cases involving sums of more than $25,000US. The Small Business Assocation of Michigan supports [sbam.org] the new procedures.

    Even the term "cybercourt" is hype. It's a loaded name intended to, first, make Michigan look tech-nice, and second, to cloud the system's basic simplicity and justify whatever the government spent to build it. It's idiotic to compare Judge Dredd-style future AI with a few video cams and electronic form shuffling. The only advancement here is one of marketing... which I would mock as feeble marketing, if it didn't apparently succeed enough to send the softer-minded Slashdotters into a Chicken-Little-like tizzy.

    The sky is not falling. Microsoft will not eat you. Our courts have not been compromised by cam whores.

  • I can see it now. You're making that last appeal for clemency from the Governor by email when the system crashes. You get back on-line only to discover that your licence agreement for Microsoft .COURT is only good for 4 appeals. You're still downloading the linux alternative KJustice when the warden reboots your nervous system.
  • I guess when I get an illegal operation on my computer I must go to Cybercourt to attend a hearing on it.
  • All rise (where ever you are).
    Michigan 1st cyber-district court now in session.
    The Honorable Max Headroom presiding.

    "You may-may-may be seated."

    Jonathan

  • Cybercourt cheaters... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jo3sh ( 258184 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @01:09AM (#2814975)
    How long will it be until punks start running bots to improve their chances in cybercourt? PunkBusters may have a new market in this...
  • before a cyber-judge. How do you plead?

    "Not Guilty, your Honor!"
    "I throw myself at the mercy of the court."
    "Does it really matter?"

    apologies to all those that still remember the exact dialog... =P
  • Hey, wait a minute! You're Katz, posing as a normal user, aren't you?!

  • 1. Bored cyber-jurors alt-tabbing between the trial and pornography.

    2. Mistrials caused by BSOD

    3. Microsoft anti-trust cases being presided over by 'MS Justice XP' software.

    Going back to point 1 though... Is anybody else looking forward to jury duty?

    :)
  • This obsession with AI has got to stop. I'm going to go on a limb here and assume the following about AI.

    1. Anything that is truly intelligent would NOT enjoy performing human's menial tasks.

    2. Anything that seems like a "can I?", before a "should I?" is probably not a good thing.

    3. AI judging us according to the law, oh boy I can't wait for that to happen. What happens when there is a bug or malfunction and no one catches it...oops.

    Not to forget the "Turing test" which is rather absurd as proof of AI.
  • Seems like the department really should be "justice plugged." Justice was well unplugged before this, no?
  • How soon until sufficient AI exists to automate the process, and mobile justice can be handed out Judge Dredd style?

    How soon until someone from the boondocks contests this with failure to provide "equal protection under the law" because they don't have access to:

    a computer

    a fast enoug computer

    a compatible computer

    "The court finds the defendant, with the IBM PC AT with CGA, guilty. We sentence him to 5 years of Microsoft Customer Support."

  • New AOL Slogan (Score:3, Funny)

    by long_john_stewart_mi ( 549153 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @02:29AM (#2815136)
    New AOL Slogan: "You've got jail!"

  • We need a Federal Small Claims Court (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mbstone ( 457308 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @02:40AM (#2815153)
    It would work like this: Say you have a dispute over an eBay transaction with somebody who lives 3000 miles away on the other side of the country. You go to your local [main] post office and file a small claims case. The post office serves the defendant for you by certified mail. On the day set for hearing, you go back to your post office and you are sent to a Federal Small Claims hearing room which has a camera, two video screens, and a flatbed scanner. One video monitor is teleconferenced to the defendant's local post office and shows the defendant, the other screen shows the face of a Federal small claims judge or magistrate (who could be physically located anywhere). The judge hears both sides and renders a decision just like in a live small claims court. The court's judgment could be enforced nationwide. Any documents that need to be shown to the judge are placed on the scanner. You set the jurisdictional limit at say $5000, same as in a California small claims court. No lawyers allowed, just like in a real small claims court (unless one of the parties happens to be a lawyer). With a system like this, it would be convenient and speedy to litigate your garden variety eBay-type dispute as well as lots of other interstate disputes that are inconvenient to hear in real courts 'cause of the distance involved. This would also prevent big corporations from taking advantage of consumers with those pesky "forum selection" contract clauses that wipe-out consumers' legal rights by forcing them to sue in some distant forum like King County, Wash.
  • So, the corrosive forces of libertarianism continue to eat away at the foundations of society. Our very system of justice is being digitized and networked, just one more data stream at the beck and call of those with the fattest pipe and the biggest wallet.

    Once the right to face your accuser meant something. Our nation was forged by men who journeyed for days to debate one another in the flesh, about the ways in which our government should take shape. The founding documents of this country were forged in the crucible of human interaction, not by pixellated images on glowing monitors! Soon, jurors will muse over the fates of their fellow human beings from the comfort of their homes talking with one another in "chat rooms", never having seen in person the poor souls on whom they sit in judgement. Life-or-death decisions will be as simple as a Slashdot poll.

    Anyone who has experienced the gripping film Twelve Angry Men [imdb.com] will know in their hearts the importance of human interaction in the process if deliberative justice. We as citizens of this country need to take a hard look at what's happening here. We must take back our irreplacable Third Estate from the hands of greedy corporations [redhat.com] more concerned with lining their own pockets than with the true meaning of justice.

  • to the phrase Circuit Court Judge
  • Great, instead of ads on the back of the yellow pages for the local ambulance chasers, soon I'll be getting Lawyer-On-Line disks in the mail...
  • There was a Max Headroom episode similar to this. I can still hear the one lawyer whining to the video-judge "But you haven't even evaluated my floppy disk!"

  • Nutz. It's just a video conference court. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @07:21AM (#2815645) Homepage
    My first reaction (to "cybercourt") was that it would be awsome to have have a place to go when you need a judge that has a clue what a web link is, and possibly even (dare I suggest it?) able to understand source code.

    -
  • We may have had a justice system at one time, but now we have a litigation industry instead, and it favors the people with the most money (just ask OJ [askoj.com]). But I bet a larger phenomenon than the high-profile legal battles is the vast bulk of cases that never get heard because there isn't enough money in them to interest attorneys. Yes, you have a case but there's nothing in it for me, so thanks for stopping by. NEXT!

    I would like to see this cybercourt idea evolve into a system with sufficient AI to listen to legal claims, ask questions, even render judgements in simple cases. Or a cyber lawyer smart enough to compete with F. Lee Bailey. Hey, it works with chess! How about a legal harassment/frivolous lawsuit filter that all cases would have to be pass before burdening the human-driven system. Even just a publicly available AI lawyer that answers legal questions reliably would be a real boon to the common citizen, who already paid to get the laws written and can't afford to pay a consultant to explain them.

  • El Paso County in Texas has this (Score:3, Interesting)

    by macjerry ( 535984 ) on Thursday January 10, 2002 @08:17AM (#2815798)
    El Paso County Texas has been doing this for several years (since '96 I believe) using FVC [fvc.com] teleconferencing system. See the this document [excelgov.org] for the proposal. They use it for criminal pre-trial hearings because of the distance from the jail to the courthouse. They also use it within the sheriffs department as well.

  • AI Justice? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Genady ( 27988 ) <gary.rogers@maRA ... minus herbivore> on Thursday January 10, 2002 @08:49AM (#2815914)
    It has always bothered me when people confuse justice and the law. Justice is a subjective concept, something that takes into account emotional ideas and uses subjective deduction to arrive at a conclusion. For the most part the United State's 'Justice' system does little more than interpret laws with a disregard for 'justice'. The legislators have enacted laws that severely restrict Judge's ability to prescribe just punishments or awards for nearly any case that comes before them. How many of you think casual drug law violators should be sent to prison for years? How many think that 'hackers' should be held without bond? These are examples of our 'Justice' system turning a blind eye towards the true meaning of the very word that defines it.

    To assume that an AI could distribute justice, is akin to assuming that an AI could teach, or parent. Yes, and AI can help, but the true responsibility should ALWAYS remain with a judge, a human being that can weigh the subjective circumstances and look at the whole picture, not just that that is shown in their courtroom.
  • That soon I can appear in court as the defendant by way of tele-conference and then serve my time in jail the same way?

    I'm all over that!

    Goran
  • Putting courts online is what I do. The biggest problems that we encounter are a lack of electronic standards. There?s legalXML and others, but most of the are not finished yet, or not broad ranging enough to truly useful. Michigan is by far and away in the lead in putting things online though. They have the benefit of an in house development system. So that $200K+ that you saw is mostly staying in the state. Most of the other states out there use private contractors, which work nothing alike, nor is there a spirit of cooperation. Which makes developing standards a pain. After a while most courts tend to adapt their ?internal standards? to the system that they use. Which means that when you get right down to it, two counties right next to each other will use complete different means of case tracking. In some areas such as civil cases. There are no standards in the way a case is actually moved through the court. And how dispositions are recorded much less followed to insure that they have been satisfied. It?s a system designed by lawyers that has been allowed to adapt and change unchecked for 200 years. The legal code is full of kludge. It may never get organized enough.

    sorry for ther ramble
    -jj-
  • Does this remind anyone of the very first 2 hour episode of Lexx?
  • Can you imagine an eliza [www-ai.ijs.si] lawyer? Har!
  • How soon until sufficient AI exists to automate the process

    Well...the AI for the way cyber-cases are currently resolved would be pretty easy.

    public int decideCase(Plaintiff plaintiff, Defendant defendant)
    {
    if(plaintiff.getNetWorth() > defendant.getNetWorth())
    {
    return(Judgement.PLAINTIFF);
    }
    else
    {
    return(Judgement.DEFENDANT);
    }
    }

    Incidently, this AI will also work for WIPO disputes as well. There's even rumors of this code being used in Washington by lawmakers when trying to determine what legislation to pass.
  • How soon until sufficient AI exists to automate the process, and mobile justice can be handed out Judge Dredd style?

    What do you mean? Computer AI has been capable of making the kind of uninformed and un-insightful decisions judges make for at lease 20 years.
  • I live in Michigan, and got arrested a few months back, for a traffic violation that I had forgotten to pay on. (doh)

    After sitting in jail for about 4 hours, I was escorted to a room about the size of a walk-in closet, that contained a TV and a microphone. The judge was in a courtroom 15 miles north of the holding cell, and we discussed the issue at hand via a 56k video conference. pretty cool, a bit jerky, but the resolution wasn't bad for a 13 inch TV screen.

    so parts of this have been going already - the district i was arrested in shares their court facilities with the neighboring district, so rather than spend the money to transport people around and around all over town, they just get a live modem link. it's pretty neat. of course, my head was spinning from the whole "geek in jail" experience, so i don't remember much else about it.. but i was impressed that people were actually putting tech to good use.

    Then they even FAXed the documents for my release over to the station, and let me go.
  • We created an electronic filing system (Test system here [nmcourts.com]) that's been in continuous use since March 1, 1999 for all criminal and juvenile cases in North Western New Mexico. I wrote a goodly chuck of the code.

    And we were not the first. There are quite a few systems in use around the country.

    The unique part of the Michigan system is the teleconferencing ability. And that's an even older idea.

    Peace,
    Marty Halvorson
    New Mexico Supreme Court
    Judicial Information Division

Slashdot Top Deals

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Close