[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
He doesn't specifically say that computers would judge, I meant to illustrate the strictness of his legal system and its intricate cross reference consistency. He makes the analogy that a law must be Operationally Consistent (because often laws contradict or it's impossible to comply) which reminds me of coders who can write beautiful code but it doesn't matter if it can't compile. Good law in the 21st century should be accountable to a system of checks for consistency like science. We can't know the truth, but we can check for errors. That's what a good compiler does. If there are too many errors, it doesn't run. Everything else can be fixed with a patch (tort).
[–] 7e62ce85 [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Even the most perfect law could be abused if say the judge always ruled a certain way for certain people. For example for Jews "not sufficient evidence, not guilty" and for goys "enough evidence, guilty".
The law would be the same and in this scenario internally consistent, but the system would still be broken.
[–] BlackSheepBrouhaha 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I don't see a problem with different rules for different people.
For instance, banks take race into account when the lend to clients. A black person with the same credit score as a white person is more likely to default on their loan, so the banks racially discriminate such that whites and blacks have the same rate of default because more blacks are denied loans. This is the system working as intended to minimize bad loans using all available information.
For instance, if prison is not a deterrent for non-white criminals, perhaps we could reintroduce corporal punishment or some other form of rehabilitation. If different people have different outcomes but the end goal remains the same, you must treat different people differently to achieve your goal. If the cost to treat people differently is lower than its return, it's a good investment. The fairness or justice of this system comes from the respect that each person is given to their testimony rather than a summary judgement based on the evidence alone.
We just don't have a graceful way to do this since these differences are racial and sex based in nature, so "discrimination" becomes a shibboleth which to thinking people is a virtue and to runts and losers a sin.