Cross-Examining the Computer: Uncertainty in the Court

John McClellan Marshall

Abstract


This paper is intended to provide lawyers, young and old, with an analytical approach to their practice that is perhaps broader than they originally learned in law school or as young associates. Because lawyers and judges tend to be derived in large part from the liberal arts, this approach broadens that view borrowed in part on the principles of quantum mechanics, in particular Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle.” While lawyers and judges are accustomed to some level of uncertainty, whether in an office context or at trial, the question of how to deal with it varies quite widely from person to person, and the subjectivity itself creates problems. Admittedly, this is an exercise in the “intellectual aspects of the practice of law,” which is an eminently practical activity, but it is intended to raise questions as to the role of modern technology in the legal context, as well as provide, to some extent, answers.


Keywords


judicial axiology; uncertainty; Big Data; technoevidence; cyberethics; black swan

Full Text:

PDF

References


LITERATURE

Boorstin D.J., Cleopatra’s Nose: Essays on the Unexpected, New York 1994.

Cobb K., Supersizing Supercomputing, “SMU Magazine” 2022, vol. 72(2).

DiResta R., The Supply of Disinformation Will Soon Be Infinite, “The Atlantic”, 20.9.2020.

Heisenberg W., Über den anschaulichen Inhalt der quantentheoretischen Kinematik und Mechanik, “Zeitschrift für Physik” 1927, vol. 43(3–4), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01397280.

Kármán T. von, The Wind and Beyond, Boston 1967.

Mahé E., Signatory Robots, “Leonardo” 2021, vol. 54(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_02032.

McClellan Marshall J., Examining Judicial Decision-making: An Axiological Analytical Tool, “Studia Iuridica Lublinensia” 2020, vol. 29(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.17951/sil.2020.29.3.55-65.

McClellan Marshall J., Technoevidence: The Turing Limit 2020, “AI and Society” 2021, vol. 36(3), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-020-01139-z.

McClellan Marshall J., The Modern Memory Hole: Cyberethics Unchained, “Athenaeum Review” 2019, vol. 94.

McClellan Marshall J., The “Terminator” Missed a Chip!: Cyberethics, International Astronautical Congress of 1995 in Oslo, Norway.

Montesquieu, L’Esprit des lois, 1750.

Plato, The Republic, 5.473.d. (c. 375 BC).

Su P., Who to Blame in an Autonomous Vehicle Crash?, “Mensa Bulletin” 2020 (July).

Savin-Baden M., Burden D., Digital Immortality and Virtual Humans, “Postdigital Science and Education” 2019, vol. 1, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-018-0007-6.

Tacitus, Agricola (98), Book 1.

Tymkiw M., Foulsham T., Eye Tracking, Spatial Biases and Normative Spectatorship in Museums, “Leonardo” 2020, vol. 53(5), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/leon_a_01746.

Zuckerman A., Artificial Intelligence: Implications for the Legal Profession, Adversarial Process and Rule of Law, “Law Quarterly Review” 2020, vol. 136, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3552131.

ONLINE SOURCES

Frank A., A New Frontier Is Opening in the Search for Extraterrestrial Life, 31.12.2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/12/31/breakthrough-listen-seti-technosignatures (access: 28.8.2023).

Kragh H., Max Planck: The Reluctant Revolutionary, 1.12.2000, https://physicsworld.com/a/max-planck-the-reluctant-revolutionary (access: 28.8.2023).

LEGAL ACTS

Constitution of the United States.

CASE LAW

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993).

Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824).




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17951/sil.2023.32.4.97-115
Date of publication: 2023-12-22 22:04:29
Date of submission: 2023-09-07 09:18:50


Statistics


Total abstract view - 371
Downloads (from 2020-06-17) - PDF - 0

Indicators



Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2023 John McClellan Marshall

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.