On Sat, 5 Feb 2000, Evan Brown wrote:
> But, I can't
> imagine a better way, though as Eliezer invariably reminds us (and rightly
> so), there _is_ a better way. Our obsession with finding and retaining a
> sterile jury is a noble intent, but impossible in reality.
Well, in "current" reality it seems difficult, but in future reality
an "eJury" would do the trick. Just copy "uploaded" minds selected
for Jury duty. Have the trial. When situations arise where things
need to be "ignored", you just do a "rollback" (database terminology) to
the time prior to the occurence of those things that need to be ignored.
As was observed by Baily in "After Thought" the problem is that
normal humans don't have a delete key. We can fix that.
Now, of course one gets into the question of what would make an
"ideal" eJury. Since you could have the selection of any ePerson
that ever existed, what would be an "ideal" jury?
Would you want a jury of people who are highly trained legally
(say GBurchN/former supreme court justices?) or a jury of people
with more experience with the everyday reality, albeit, those
demonstrating a high capacity for rational thought (say EvMick clones),
or would you want people highly trained in scientific analysis or
the intricacies of rational thought (say some Nobel prize winners
or Robert Owen types)?
I've always thought one of the interesting *nits* in the legal
system is the concept of Judgement by one's "peers". Does that
mean that I get a jury of Extropians? Or do I get a jury where
most of the people watch Days of our Lives, Jerry Springer
and WWF all day?
Things that make you go hmmmmmm....
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:29 MDT