Feb 22, 17 / Pis 25, 01 02:56 UTC

Re: [OFFICIAL POST] The Court System of Asgardia  

I would hope that both parties would approach an Asgardian judge in good faith with an honest desire to seek a solution. If the judge rules that one or both parties are not acting in good faith, or that the problem can not be resolved amicably, it would be referred to the local authorities.

It does beg the question, though, of how enforcement would be carried out in the distant future. What would we do if a resident refuses to comply with a legal decision, to fulfil a contractual obligation, or generally acts in an antisocial way? Are we going to have prison colonies in the astroid belt or something?

Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 20:16 UTC

I believe the Judicial Branch of Asgardia should be run parallel to the Ministry of Justice. The Judicial Branch having the Supreme Court/Council and the Ministry of Justice having an Office of the Courts (the High Courts and Appelate Courts) and an Office of Mediation, Conciliation, and Resolution (the lower courts). This could allow for the Judicial system to be the consciences and the Ministry to be body.

Phicksur stated:

Judges are in charge of adjudicating the law and making decisions about the law.
Law Enforcement is in charge of protecting the citizens from those who violate the law.
Corrections should NOT be considered punishment under any circumstances, but be in charge of the CORRECTION of aberrant social behaviour.

Judges interpret laws and regulations based upon evidence. An AI counterpart would use logic, based upon static information. Both have their merits and flaws, so the Appeals should be allowed, within realistic means - say if you were caught with the stolen product in hand, with Creditable witnesses able to pick you up in a line up, and video evidence showing your face and voice as the assailant - probably won't be entitled to Appeals Trial do to the forgone conclusion. AI can easily be used to make sure "Rights of the Individual" are stated, what the "Charge" is, and the possible immediate actions and outcomes. Communication is a key topic.

Law enforcement should be trained in communication skills, basic psychology/sociology, and finally fitness and physical action. Any good conversationalist can defuse most situations. Certain actions from law enforcement should still require warrants and the like. Agencies (Law Enforcement, Defence, Corrections, etc) WILL be held accountable to the People, for they are a SERVICE to the people.

As for the result/outcome/verdict, it should not be classified as good/bad or punishment/reward. The fact that Justice must be done for actions done, implies that the rights and responsibilities of the individual and the whole were violated in some capacity. I much appreciate the title of Elder as being one how has wisdom and acts fairly for the benefit of all parties.

If we approach the whole Justice System with taking the opportunity to better ourselves, rather then better others, the community will be the greater for it.

Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 20:20 UTC

Separate Judicial and law enforcement. They need to be neutral from and towards each other.

Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 23:17 UTC

Could I respectfully suggest that using a true AI in a justice capacity would solve the vast majority of issues experienced in justice systems across the world. I'm not saying that our existing human based justice system is completely dysfunctional - just that it is the best bad system we currently have.

What's my basis for this? I have a close association with the legal system in my country and I have regularly seen magistrates, judges and justices misunderstand / ignore important evidence, permit the presentation of evidence that was not collected within the rules of evidence, arbitrarily deny the presentation of important evidence, deviate from legislated procedures, truncate proceedings because of time pressures, allow cases become more about showmanship and theatrics than facts and evidence, allow their own personal feelings and biases impact on judgements, and have no consistency in applying penalties and sentences.

In the case of jury trials, a quote I heard once sums up my thoughts nicely: "Your fate is put in the hands of 12 people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty".

I can see that a true AI can solve most, if not all, the above issues, as well as speed up the time taken to commence, hear and discharge a case and dramatically reduce the amount of cases that go to appeal.

I am not oblivious to the sociological dimension of such a move. Generally speaking, humans will undoubtedly be concerned about replacing a key component to the operation of the justice system with an artificial intelligence. However, I also believe that it can become one of those "why didn't we do this sooner" moments when / if it happens.

  Updated  on Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 06:33 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Mar 23, 17 / Ari 26, 01 23:50 UTC

I must respectfully disagree with the proposition of using AI for the foreseeable future. The problem isn't AI per se, it's that current AI technology can only do what it's programmed to do\programmed to learn and we don't know how to program it to learn this ability. There are an increasing number of uses of AI in the legal profession, but at this point an AI judge or jury is just going to output a lot of terrible verdicts. Keep in mind that AI that can generate variations on standard contracts has only come out in the last couple of years.

I'm not entirely sure soft AI will ever make a good judge, though. The big issue is that a good judge understands that a fact is always disputable, neither entirely right nor wrong, but only estimated from the preponderance of evidence. I don't think anyone has an AI that can be so grey.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 00:42 UTC

@sammwich - Your arguments is the exact reason why I predicated my position on the use of a "true AI".

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 04:28 UTC

Yes, it's all about the "training material" - what you intend for it to learn - but the same deficit exists in the human model deployed currently. In both examples you're expecting a given output for a given case.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 05:26 UTC

True, which is why I won't make a bet on whether we'll ever have an AI true enough for the job. It's more likely our best AI will either be linear improvements in weak AI or something that is intelligent like a human and just as fallible.

Mar 24, 17 / Ari 27, 01 06:44 UTC

I have no doubt in the AI. Only the training materials, methods, and targets.

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 14:18 UTC

By: Phicksur(Asgardian) on 21 February 2017, 3:33 p.m.

Law Enforcement should be more under the judiciary than under the executive branch, as it is done in the United States. Judges, Corrections, and Law Enforcement are the three legs of the stool of Justice; they each look at it from a different perspective.

-Judges are in charge of adjudicating the law and making decisions about the law. They should not make laws, nor should they have the power to enforce the law. Their whole purpose is to make difficult decisions based on all the evidence made available to them. It would be nice if the laws could be decided upon by judges with AI assistance, but the judgments shouldn't be purely by AI or human alone: humans are prone to bias, while AI would lack compassion. Appeals should be allowed, although a limit of one per year might be appropriate in all but the most egregious circumstances. The primary executive (President, whatever) would still have the power to pardon in those cases where the law is limited or where justice may have been limited by the letter of the law.

-Law Enforcement is in charge of protecting the citizens from those who violate the law. They do not make decisions, only observe when laws are broken and collect evidence to give to the judges so that the judges can make the best determination of whether or not the laws were violated. Everything in society should be recorded but not necessarily monitored by someone, allowing evidence to be collected in the event of a crime, but not be used as a method of investigation prior to a crime. Law Enforcement can only observe the private recordings of citizens with an order from a Judge IF that judge is given sufficient evidence to believe that a crime is likely to be committed. Law enforcement should ALWAYS be monitored and recorded while on the job, and obvious to anyone who meet them. Covert investigations should remain under the purview of the executive branch, specifically intelligence operations.

-Corrections is in charge of making certain that those who are found guilty of crimes are educated about the laws (especially those they violated), and protecting the citizens by making certain that they will be no longer a threat to society when released. Those who have violated the law should be seen as misguided, perhaps damaged, individuals to be made whole and informed. If they cannot be taught, or repaired, then they must remain as charges to live out the rest of their days in further education until they either learn, heal, or depart this life. Corrections should NOT be considered punishment under any circumstances, but be in charge of the CORRECTION of aberrant social behavior.

Above all, as you might guess, I believe the entire role of the judicial branch should not be seen as an actor of punishment, but one of protection and education for its citizens. You should never dread going before a judge (slight pun intended), but instead should only see them as a 'village elder' who will make as impartial a decision as it is humanly possible to do so, while making sure that all parties involved return to a place of equilibrium (in the case of civil law) so they can return to a place where they can grow and thrive.

I agree with @Phicksur for the most part here. However, unlike EyeR, my optimism in AI technology is not quite as high as I see of some people. I absolutely agree that we must have an appeals process. I wouldn't want to be exiled without hope of return because of a lack of appeal.

Apr 1, 17 / Tau 07, 01 14:21 UTC

Also, as @Tiedaar mentions above, I agree that we are getting a bit ahead of ourselves. We don't have a space station (yet). How are we to expect any judgements to hold? Aside from stipping one of their Citizenship, for the moment, there is not much that can be appreciated from a Court perspective.

Having said that, I do agree we should at least outline the structure of how the system should work.

Apr 5, 17 / Tau 11, 01 05:39 UTC


The Judicial System should be separate from law enforcement. I think that those who have to execute the law should be separate from trying the law and required to uphold a high enough standard that all citizens should emulate in honesty, fairness, justice. A high enough standard to be above reproach. 


"1) Is there any one indisputable  reason that any Asgardian citizen should place 100% trust in their laws and those whom uphold them? Therefore any one reason we should not consider all branches responsible for justice in any form an arm of law enforcement as a whole?"

"This feels like planning to fail. As in building a contingency into a system because we know we'll need it. Should we not design a single court where binding decisions can be made reliably, responsibly and understanbly in the first instance? This would increase efficiency and trust would be inherent."

Both of these points are kind of related. Trust is absolutely essential for a Justice System to work fairly. If Citizens of Asgardia do not trust 100% in their laws and courts then their is no justice. But with that, as  EyeR pointed out, it is less a mater of "Efficiency and trust" and more of a mater of understanding that this is a nation of people. People are fallible and make misstates, have agendas, and do have their own biases. The courts should afford a defendant or a plaintive the opportunity to appeal the decision of any one judge. 

@ Drac

" I would like to see any type of station/colony/base have 24/7 CC surveillance on everything."

I think this is inevitable if only for safety. This is looking way way into the future but any place I space will need to be constantly monitored. There will and should be some caveats for privacy but I think this is an issue for the distant future. But yes, CCTV just about everywhere.

@ Phicksur

I think your first post on this summed my initial point of a separate Judicial and Law Enforcement system quite well. 

@ EyeR

As for the idea of AI adjudicating anything? I think that AI would best be suited for identifying violations of laws and loopholes. At which point human lawyers would argue for and against the defendant and plaintive. Letting AI judge people might be a step too far at the moment.

Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 19:33 UTC

@Tiedaar  - Totally agree with you there -an open society need to have as little prescriptions as possible and your idea is excellent,

  Last edited by:  Benjamin Dell (Asgardian, Candidate, Member of the Parliament)  on Jun 16, 17 / Can 27, 01 19:34 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time