Web Concepts

Posts Tagged ‘law’

The Honorable Justice Watson?

The Yale Law Journal's Betsy Cooper wrote an essay examining our favorite Jeopardy! champion (and new medical diagnoser) robot Watson, but from a new angle: Could Watson help judges make legal decisions?

The essay notes that Watson could be of particular use to a certain type of judge or legal scholar: the new textualists. She writes: "New textualists believe in reducing the discretion of judges in analyzing statutes. Thus, they advocate for relatively formulaic and systematic interpretative rules. How better to limit the risk of normative judgments creeping into statutory interpretation than by allowing a computer to do the work?"

Says Cooper, "there are three important elements of new textualism: its reliance on ordinary meaning (the premise), its emphasis on context (the process), and its rejection of normative biases (the reasoning)." From that vantage point, Watson wouldn't be so much a judge (much as we'd love to see a massive black judge's robe draped over Watson's storage array) as an assistant or clerk, using its power to decide, for example, what the most "ordinary" use of a word is. Humans have to rely on instinct and experience, but Watson can systematically measure that sort of thing, narrowing down the possible meanings of words to eliminate uncertainty.

Watson also has the advantage of not being able to insert his own emotions or opinions into his decisions, by virtue of the fact that, well, he doesn't have any. Cooper does conclude that, due to his occasional errors (we'd hate to sentence criminals to serve time in Toronto) and the more basic fact that perhaps there should be a human element to judging, Watson is not an ideal candidate to actually make the bench. But that doesn't mean he couldn't be tremendously useful in legal decisions.

[Yale Law Journal]

"Damned if you don't" is the situation that seven of Italy's top seismologists now find themselves in -- the scientists face manslaughter charges for failing to predict the April 2009 earthquake that struck the town of L'Aquila in central Italy.

In late March 2009, tremors were recorded in the surrounding region, resulting in a magnitude-4.0 earthquake on March 30. The following day, the seven seismologists were in L'Aquila attending a meeting of the Major Risks Committee, a group that advises Italy's Civil Protection Agency on natural hazards risks. At a press conference following the quake, committee member Bernardo di Bernardinis told reporters, "the scientific community tells us there is no danger, because there is an ongoing discharge of energy. The situation looks favorable." But on April 6, a magnitude-6.3 quake struck, killing more than 300 people and leaving about 65,000 homeless.

Local citizens claimed they had been planning to leave their homes after the smaller quake, but had changed their minds after the committee's comments. In August 2009, the citizens filed a formal request for investigation, and earlier this month the chief prosecutor stated that his office had enough information to indict the individuals named in the case.

Nearly 4,000 researchers around the world have come to the seismologists' defense, signing a letter to Italy's president, Giorgio Napolitano, urging him to compel decision makers to focus on hazards mitigation and earthquake preparedness rather than holding scientists responsible for doing something that is not yet possible. Despite extensive research efforts by seismologists in recent decades, earthquakes cannot yet be accurately predicted to occur on a specific day, or even in a specific month.

The case could represent a legal precedent for sorting out truth from falsehood in a court of law

The lawyer, David Levin, represents a woman who claims that she no longer received good assignments from a temp agency after she complained of sexual harassment at a job site. A coworker at the temp agency claimed he heard a supervisor say the woman should not be placed on jobs because of the complaint.

That prompted Levin to have the coworker undergo a functional magnetic-resonance imaging (fMRI) brain scan by the company Cephos, which claims to provide scientific validation of whether someone is telling the truth. Now the proposed evidence will test the New York standards for scientific evidence in courts -- known as the Frye standard -- which typically requires the evidence to be considered reliable among the broader scientific community.

Both Cephos and another company called No Lie MRI have marketed their brain scans as lie detectors since 2007. They report accuracy rates from 75 percent to 98 percent under lab conditions, but many neuroscientists remain skeptical of, or outright opposed to, using brain scan technology in court.

We reported earlier on a Cephos-funded fMRI study at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, which tested people who participated in a mock crime within the experiment. The test caught guilty parties, but also sometimes netted innocents who were telling the truth.

Last year, an Illinois court allowed an expert to describe the fMRI brain scan of man accused of murdering a 10-year-old-girl. But that was presented as evidence of the man's mental illness during the sentencing phase of the trial, whereas the new Brooklyn case would be a legal first for determining truth-telling.

We'll be sure to keep an eye on whether this battleground between science and the law translates into wider use of brain scans or not. If it does pass muster with the Frye standard, expect even more debate over the use of brain scans as direct mind readers in the future.

[via Wired]