Why do we Have Judges Anymore Anyway?

The fact that in today's society we allow people's fate to be determined by usually one or in some cases, a few individuals is a barbaric and obsolete practice that is (and always has been) teeming with prejudice and subjective ideals as well as factors like bribery, poor ethics and often completely dependent on how good a judge is feeling that day.

Day after day, I see articles and hear stories of injustice handed out by a single person who may or may not be truly licensed to practice law. There are hundreds on this site alone. I find it an outrage that a person's future, guilty or not guilty is decided by human judgement which is intended to be impartial but is frequently not due to the human nature of being extremely partial.

It's 2013 and computer programming is becoming able masterfully handle complex algorithms all the time with increasing accuracy. The range of data that can be input into a program for software is vast and ever expanding.
If we truly want impartial and fair judgements made, this can be easily done with software that does exactly that. Compile the local and federal laws. Compile the past and current judgements. Input the information regarding the crime (this clearly isn't built for the more complex of cases, understandably, but those would require a jury anyway) and allow the program to decide a fair, impartial and even sentencing upon the defendant.

No more "the judge is having a good/bad day". No more lesser sentences for "Reginald Foxworthy III" while "Darryl Jackson" gets the harsher penalties. No more paid off judges, no back room deals between the lawyers and the judge. No ridiculous sentences made to make an example of people.

I know this isn't perfect, but I think we need to start working together to implement this kind of solution to a system that is and has wrecked countless lives. What ideas do you guys have?

reply to post by gottaknow


Judges and lawyers are essquires. A form of nobility. Under the original 13th amendment of the ORIGINAL CONSTIUTION of the United States FOR America every single one of those HYPOCRITICAL B-TARDS should be tried for treason.

Did you know back in the day if TWO Americans caught someone breaking Constitutional Amendments you could shoot them dead on site for treason with no need for trial. You can still technically do it today... but now we have judges and lawyers and a flawed Judicial system that is built on the foundations of corruption sinisisum. Occult inspired self entitled entities.

reply to post by gottaknow

No more paid off judges, no back room deals between the lawyers and the judge.

Corruption is corruption. The deals in the back room would still be there. In fact, It would be easier. How would you know a computer actually handed down your sentence?

And who pays the software engineers to make sure its "fair"?

And so, let me understand the OP, you are suggesting that a computer be Judge Dredd, judge, jury and executioner based on previous human judges decisions.....Isn't this just promoting the flawed system or allowing for a rise of the machines. The whole point of a judge in a jury trial is as mediator....in smaller matters, yes the judge makes the ruling but always able to be appealed. How would you make the system better?

The defendant stands before the dimly red light...

Dave: "HAL, I'm innocent! I didn't commit the crime you said I did." "I have proof!"

HAL: "I am sorry Dave. I can not do that."

Dave: "But I wasn't even there! I have witnesses!"

HAL: "Dave...Dave...human persception is unreliable, Dave." "The sentaince is to be executed immediately."

Dave: "No!"

HAL: "Daisy, Daisy, give me your answer do. I'm half crasy...."

Dim red light fades out...

Be careful what you ask for.

reply to post by gottaknow


Who's gonna program these computers? I hope someone who has studied law for a long period of time. Who's going to take certain emotions into account and understand human nature?

I'll keep the judges. What happens when popular opinion changes? If computers were programmed long ago a black person would be property to this day.

I don't want the human element taken out. Same reason I don't want drones that can eliminate targets on their own. I think discretion is important.

Judges are for passing judgment. I thought that was straightforward.

Person breaks the laws of a land. Someone complains for justice. The two parties word it out in a fancy arena, judgment is made and the problem is resolved.

So maybe if you want it better go study law and become a judge and see how easy it is to put up with real people without turning it into a game. How about starting at a divorce court, or maybe family court where you get to see two parents try to decide who gets to take care of their kids more after a divorce. Or you get to see why a parent becomes unfit to raise their kid.

The fake-nice talk trying to float off the rationale for a judge in the first place, I see that from individuals who would rather not follow the law at all. "Why follow the law, that's for other people right?" so goes their amnestic attitude.

So I don't suppose you saw that guy who was on something running around naked in a subway terminal damaging the calm of men and women. That's why we need judges, to have a signature behind putting someone into a place where they won't do that so much to nice innocent people.

reply to post by gottaknow

and often completely dependent on how good a judge is feeling that day.

I thought what happened recently to Chad "Ochocinco" Johnson was a sad indictment of our system. Just because the judge was on the rag that day, or whatever it was she was pissy about, was not a reason for him to be sentenced to jail. What he did was, for him, a natural reaction, something he'd been doing most of his life and for her to sentence him to jail time for it was a travesty of justice.

Something I read today was similar and I cannot, for the life of me, remember what it involved or whom, but a judge ruled that someone could not use, IIRC, one of the Constitutional rights to defend him/herself in court. That ruling is unconstitutional yet these people, and I use that term loosely, are in charge and can ruin lives on a whim.

As for computers, they aren't infallible so I don't know if that's the answer either, but it's probably better than the crappy system we have now that is obviously broken.

reply to post by Siberbat

i LAUGHED SO HARD AT YOUR REPLY I NEARLY PEED MYSELF!!!!

But I do agree that it is high time that we come up with something else other than allowing people to judge other people...maybe some sort of medical devise some type of state of the art lie detector and I dont agree with the death penalty hard labor instead...

reply to post by shells4u


Inmates have more rights than civilians now, free education, free room and board, free entertainment, free lawyers, free health care. I work in the prison system. i have seen first hand all these things. The lawyers would fight hard labor tooth and nail. Also, when they are taken outside the facilities to work chances of them escaping skyrocket.

Computers would be even more cold and calculating than a jury of your peers. At least when there is a jury there is a chance for sympathy/ empathy.

Do you think we should all foot the bill for people that commit multiple murders? Footing the bill for these offenders for the rest of their lives? We should bring back capitol punishment in a big way. Otherwise we perpetuate the infinitely growing prison systems that we already have. I bet you are all for abortion too, kill the innocent but save the animals and psychopaths right. Wake up!

reply to post by Privateinquotations
In California at pelican bay where my sister used to work as a peace keeper(guard) the inmates worked AT the prison and used to make eyeglass lenses for the state medi-cal the folks who got state medi=cal like for the poor used to be able to get free glasses....there are jobs they can do on the prison site itself...You have become biased because you work around inmates all the time as my sister became she admits now what the job did to her...how it skewed her perception...

There are a lot of judges, and by far there a lot more good judges than bad judges. They are required to follow rules in their judgement, but they have a little leeway in their decisions. I can't say that a different system would be any better, the grass is not always greener on the other side. If you break the law, you should be punished. I don't agree in the seat belt law that requires drivers to be buckled up but I will follow it. I don't believe in ignoring the laws broken by people of high social status...they should be setting an example.

Hi everyone and thanks for your comments. All of them.
Firstly, I want to convey that my suggestion leans more toward the sentencing than the judgement of guilt itself at this time. I can see how I wasn't entirely clear about that. Cases of a more complex variety such as murder, rape, would still require a jury and the current system as is - for the time being, until a better solution to that is implemented. And you can't say that the current system does not require restructure.

I'm referring to the more cut and dry cases that people get wrongly sentenced in. And there's a lot of them.
Everything from your standard speeding tickets to DUI, drug charges, petty theft, solicitation. Most of those cases don't include juries and the sentences from them vary wildly and are often grossly affected by corruption and partial judging. Mr. Johnson's case was a great one to bring up SpanishArcher, and is an excellent example of how one judge being offended directly impacts another person's life.

There are countless cases that this happens in. Especially in the lives of the ordinary, everyday criminals, often young people that get their entire lives ruined by one person's whim. Yes, rickymouse, there are rules that judges are supposed to follow, but they have time and time again proved that they don't necessarily do that. And while there are statutes in place that are there to combat that kind of activity, many are either financially unable or intellectually unaware of these alternatives.

Regarding the infallibility of the software, it's very simple and the results could be easily compared to insure a median sentence free from abnormalities. If defendant A is found/pleads guilty of shoplifting $100 of merchandise 1st offense, the sentence should equal defendant B's sentence if the crime was the same and would be visible to the defendants anonymously to compare against each other and the numerous other sentences that match the crimes.

Obviously multiple extraneous variables such as repeat offense, additional criminal elements like resisting arrest, etc. can be factored into the sentencing to reflect an impartial sentence that is in accordance to the law and fairly distributed to all those who committed said crime in said fashion. Lol. I'm starting to understand why law-based literature gets so elaborate.

And while the focus above leans toward sentencing, there's no reason that software could not also compare evidence based on thousands of previous judgements and come up with a logical judgement of simpler cases. Any radical judgement/glitch could be contested and reviewed if necessary.

OR perhaps defendants could have the choice on whether they wish the computer-based judgement or the standard proven very fallible human choice.

reply to post by shells4u


and california is basically bankrupt. nothing is free those inmates are paid for by the taxpayers, so are their lawyers in a lot of cases.how much taxpayer money was paid to even set up that facility to manufacture these "free" glasses in the first place?