Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You don't want "impartial" judgements Why? Your argument seems to be that without empathy in the legal system people would go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread. That doesn't really make sense, My argument would be that with empathy in the legal system, unlikeable people from the wrong minority with an unhappy judge would go to prison for stealing a loaf of bread. There is so much disproportionality in the lega…
How would you formalize it without it being exploitable? And what about other things, how about a father who killed the man who raped his daughter? Or a woman who hired some one to kill her abusive partner? How would you estimate damage? it's easy to do with itemised goods but how do you estimate the damage of being abused, raped, how do you put a value on someone's life? These are things we haven't even managed to f…
> And what about other things, how about a father who killed the man who raped his daughter? Or a woman who hired some one to kill her abusive partner?
I don't get what makes these particularly hard questions. You have a motive and a crime. There will be some prior on how much a motive adjusts for a crime.
Obviously there is no "correct" answer, as it's a philosophical question. The important thing is that it's a decision made consistently and detached from the specific biases of each case.
> How would you estimate damage? it's easy to do with itemised goods but how do you estimate the damage of being abused, raped, how do you put a value on someone's life?
People already put a value on people's lives. The problem isn't that such a value is inherent to law, it's that it's applied neither consistently or reasonably.
A simple approach to this is to decide upon some general conversions - how much a life is worth, for instance - and when it comes to specific instantiations one can relatively straightforwardly make reasoned deductions about how much suffering a given instantiation of a crime (aka. a specific class of rape) causes in the general case. This would be born of largely of research into the long-term quality-of-life effects of these events, plus a heuristic measure of how much short-term suffering is inflicted.
The difference here isn't that this deduction has to be done. The difference is that this deduction won't change because you're black, because you're rich or because your judge had a leg cramp when they woke up. The difference is that rather than being based on how bad a crime sounds, there is at least some attempt to measure the impact of the damage done.
> How are you going to form a legal argument that can lead to a new precedent to a computer?
Most crimes that we should care about are uninteresting crimes. These are things like violence, property crime and drug offenses and make the vast majority of crimes. New precedents can still be handled on a case-by-case basis (albeit with more regularization to fit the prescribed bases for punishment).