Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility • Hacker News Board

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#41

Post by alanwatts » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 1:31 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #25

benevol wrote: post #22

A slow-motion replay is just 1 way of "looking closer". The thing is, in order to not be hypocritical, we'd need to look as closely as possible. Once we do that, we'll be looking at the molecular structure of not only the brain of the perpetrator but also the whole body (as there is of course infinite interaction). We'll be asking for the causes that led to the body being as it was at the moment of the thing will cur…

Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Your materialistic assumptions are a wonderful way to do science, but a terrible way to be human or govern.

>Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"?

Maybe that we are influenced far more by uncontrollable environmental factors than by our "freely* willed" decisions.

>Free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate;

When you are hungry, you need to eat. But if you don't have any money and take an apple from the market you will be punished. So technically in this situation, the person acted out of necessity and therefore did not act out of free will.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#42

Post by anexprogrammer » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 1:39 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #30

anexprogrammer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more about bringing independence to the judgement. It's a check against the system, or an overly powerful state. A judge may know the law more precisely than a layperson, but is no less fallible. But they are of the system. Juries work remarkably well on that basis. That's not to say they're likely to be better at deciding truth, guilt or innocence. They'll undoubtedly bring some of their prejudices in from the…

There are a lot of examples of jury nullification in the US. - The famous Zenger trial was a jury nullification. It did influence the development of US law -- later, but it was overtly contrary to the very well-established law of the time. - Jury nullification was common for alcohol-related crimes in Prohibition. - It was also common for lynch mob participants.

I googled a little after yours and the sibling comment. Seems it's been much more actively used in the US than the UK. Fascinating that US law refers all the way back to a 1670 English case[1], even though there's no legal binding.

Were I not old enough to remember the Falklands case I doubt I'd ever have heard of it here in the UK. There was no reference to it in the information sent when I was called for jury duty, or any mention by the judges.

The Falklands case, the documents it brought to light, and the implications were in the media regularly for weeks afterwards, possibly months, so it was impossible to miss. I can't remember a more recent case (though I'm sure there must have been). All Google turfs up for the UK recently is a couple of media articles expressing the belief it should be more widely known.

http://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/jury-instructions-and-...

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#43

Post by coredog64 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 1:47 PM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #34

Houshalter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. It seems like the issue is with slowmo is it looks like you have more time to decide and react, then you actually do. In real time it's more clear that an action was reactive, and that there was no time to make a calculated decision.

Confounding the issue: evidence that some reactions happen before the actor is consciously aware that there is a decision to be made (let alone actually making a choice and deliberately initiating a response). It goes beyond recoiling your hand from a hot stove before you're aware of the pain. Tests w/ next-gen helicopter gunship HUD trigger controls showed pilots opening fire microseconds _before_ their neural pathw…

Isn't this all based on those fMRI scans that were discredited?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/07/algorithms-used-to-st...

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#44

Post by PJDK » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 1:56 PM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #34

Houshalter wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. It seems like the issue is with slowmo is it looks like you have more time to decide and react, then you actually do. In real time it's more clear that an action was reactive, and that there was no time to make a calculated decision.

Confounding the issue: evidence that some reactions happen before the actor is consciously aware that there is a decision to be made (let alone actually making a choice and deliberately initiating a response). It goes beyond recoiling your hand from a hot stove before you're aware of the pain. Tests w/ next-gen helicopter gunship HUD trigger controls showed pilots opening fire microseconds _before_ their neural pathw…

If the HUD statement is true does that mean the pilots shoot indiscriminately at friends and foes and the firing system is therefore useless?

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#45

Post by thomasfoster96 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

erez wrote: post #28

pauljohncleary wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With cricket the player's intent is not considered unlike many other sports and in courtroom trials. So looking at the most minute detail (e.g. the snickometer, the checks if the ball made a "snick" sound passing the bat, indicating contact) makes sense to the sport.

I think there's something in the LBW rules about intent, not to mention the whole concept of "where would've the ball gone has it not been etc. etc." I personally dislike the whole fixation over minutiae in Cricket today. The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology, for instance the front-foot no-ball which now is preposterous when they keep trying to see whether a millimetre of the foot crossed the l…

Yep, if the ball pitches outside the line of the stumps it's not out unless the batsman made no attempt to play a shot.

> The Laws should, I think, be updated for the new technology,

I disagree (although being young I've only ever watched cricket with this sort of technology). Given the other aspects of the game rely so much on precision, I can't see letting the umpiring become more subjective and/or allowing for more human error would improve the game.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#46

Post by hx87 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 2:18 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #25

benevol wrote: post #22

A slow-motion replay is just 1 way of "looking closer". The thing is, in order to not be hypocritical, we'd need to look as closely as possible. Once we do that, we'll be looking at the molecular structure of not only the brain of the perpetrator but also the whole body (as there is of course infinite interaction). We'll be asking for the causes that led to the body being as it was at the moment of the thing will cur…

Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Your materialistic assumptions are a wonderful way to do science, but a terrible way to be human or govern.

Victims or not, people need incentives to not harm other people, and when these incentives fail society needs to be protected from the offenders. Once retribution is out of the picture (as it should be), free will doesn't matter with respect to justice.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#47

Post by hx87 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 2:19 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #39

rubidium wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any way for your statement (which has many bold assertions) to lead anywhere but "We're all just victims of our genes"? Your materialistic assumptions are a wonderful way to do science, but a terrible way to be human or govern.

It goes further. His statement (which I agree with) implies that we have no individual responsibility because our actions are entirely beyond our control. In that case the perpetrator is just as much victim, which alters the entire balance of justice, and creates all kinds of ugly rabbit holes to deal with with respect to societal effects and morality.

Providing a strong disincentive to the perpetrator (and in the mean time, locking them up) improves society, whereas doing so to the victim does not. That makes all the necessary difference.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#48

Post by hx87 » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

PJDK wrote: post #44

chrisweekly wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confounding the issue: evidence that some reactions happen before the actor is consciously aware that there is a decision to be made (let alone actually making a choice and deliberately initiating a response). It goes beyond recoiling your hand from a hot stove before you're aware of the pain. Tests w/ next-gen helicopter gunship HUD trigger controls showed pilots opening fire microseconds _before_ their neural pathw…

If the HUD statement is true does that mean the pilots shoot indiscriminately at friends and foes and the firing system is therefore useless?

It means that the pilots shoot at foes and avoid shooting at friends before they are aware that they are doing so.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#49

Post by bitwize » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 2:22 PM UTC

orf wrote: post #29

cmdrfred wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exists in the US as well but the judge will throw you into contempt if you mention it.

US courtroom practices seem to be very very different from UK ones, despite the same origin.

Fun fact: Judges in the UK do not use gavels. However, judges in UK police procedurals and legal dramas use gavels. Why? Because the judges in American police procedurals and legal dramas do, and it's become an expected trope.

Re: Slow-motion replays can distort criminal responsibility

#50

Post by Retric » Tue, Aug 02, 2016, 3:11 PM UTC

alanwatts wrote: post #35

dkural wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The judiciary process is not just focused on punishment, but protection of society from violent individuals, rehabilitation, and creating disincentives for other perpetrators.

Intentions aside, the 67% recidivism rate in the US shows that it is more focused on recurring punishment than rehabilitation.

The rate of people who go back to prison is far less than 67%. The odds that someone goes back is 67% when looking at people who have already gone back and counting them once for each trip.

AKA (A, B, C, A, D, A, E) = 1 person out of 4 went back (25%). But, A went back 3 times so out of 7 stays 3 of them repeated (43%).

Yet another way of counting is to look at people at one point in time (C, A, D, A,). But, someone in prison regularly is much more likely to be in prison while your studying. This is mitigated by very long studies, but 10 or even 20 years is not enough.

PS: When you consider some homeless people use prison as a way to get free medical care it's easy for someone to be in and out a lot for minor reasons. Another group that's likely to come back are people who go to prison for failure to pay fines because prison tends to make you even more poor.