|
New technology meets legal establishment - will there be hybrid
vigour?
How can the law/legal system be democratized by Web 2.0 (that is allow
for more citizen participation). I am interested in ideas about
participation of citizens, not so much as litigants, in the decision
making and development of the law by legislatures, regulators, and
courts (especially the courts).
|
| |
| |
On Apr 16, 6:58 am, gr...@vgetk.org wrote:
New technology meets legal establishment - will there be hybrid
vigour?
How can the law/legal system be democratized by Web 2.0 (that is allow
for more citizen participation). I am interested in ideas about
participation of citizens, not so much as litigants, in the decision
making and development of the law by legislatures, regulators, and
courts (especially the courts).
In USA, Canada, Britain and other common law countries, we already
have extensive citizen participation in decision making and
development of the law in the courts. It's called Jury 1.0, with
Active Wetware 1.0 Live running on 12 parallel servers to receive and
process the information feed we call Evidence 1.0 and produce the
output we call Verdict 1.0.
As for the legislatures, we also have something called Voting 1.0,
electing the people who make the written laws and, more important,
booting them out of office and installing the opposition party when we
decide we don't like what they are doing. (Voting, itself, means
nothing for liberty if opposition is forbidden; dictators routinely
capture 99% of the vote in their countries).
Thomas Jefferson said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor
yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the
principles of its constitution."
The jury system is thus the bulwark of all other civil liberties we
enjoy; the very real possibility of jury nullification of bad laws is
what keeps the law honest. However, I shudder at the idea of turning
what juries do, into some kind of Web-based American Idol poll. IMO
that would be the end of civilization as we know it. I'm not
kidding.
Technology is great, and can greatly expand human capabilities, often
in unforeseen directions. For a more concrete example, a 40-ton D-8
bulldozer is a technical marvel that can literally move mountains, and
there's nothing like it when you need to build an interchange for a
motorway, or dig a canal. But for some jobs, it would clearly be
overkill, and when you need to plant a sapling in your back yard, you
would be better off with a plain old D-1 shovel whose technology is
mature and hasn't evolved much since about 1,000 BC. There's a
reason why ancient hand tools like hammers, axes, and so on are still
around even though much fancier, larger, faster power tools have been
invented over the past century -- for the most basic needs, they are
still what it takes to get the job done.
Building the law and protecting civil liberty is one of our most basic
needs. The only safe way to do that is relying on live, physically
present, human interaction for the most important parts. That
doesn't mean high technology has no role at all; there are plenty of
ways that interactive electronics can be brought to bear on the jury
system. But IMO it can never replace the system itself, at least
not until machines replace humans as the masters and decisionmakers.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
|
| |
| |
|
