If god forbid I'm ever in such a situation my strategy is to read from one of my books and bore him to death.

Thanks for sharing this.

I simply had no idea how many "establishment conservatives" would be prepared to plunge knives into the establishment, or watch idly as others do. No idea.

I think some of my anger these days covers up feeling like a fool.

In my view, the most significant thing about Bove's dissent—by far—is that it was joined by Judges Hardiman, Bibas, Porter, Matey, and Phipps.

I confess that, for me, that's surprising.

I agree.
I'm surprised, at a minimum, that one or more of them didn't insist he start off in a less smug tone.

Should it be your choice, though? Under existing law a defendant can only waive a jury trial if the government and court consent. The defendant is not the only one with an interest in the nature of the trial mechanism.

Only legislators can do the job. They're who we empower to structure our criminal justice system.

It's simple: “Criminal verdicts shall be reached by human jurors, unassisted by artificial intelligence."

The time to decree this is now, before we’re seduced by the lure of the next release.

/end

Technology will recursively repair its way into every human space if we let it. Including the jury box.

If we are to be saved from the cyberjury, it won't be by tech companies. Their profit motive will always press them to the next step, and then the next.

Bots can't read body language? We'll give them a video feed.

Bots can't infuse their judgment with the wisdom of experience? We'll give them backstories.

Bots aren't human-feeling enough to be your peer? Just wait! Our next release will fool your own mother!

The critiques were powerful. I suspect most in the audience came away believing that trial-by-bot is not a good idea.

The real trouble, though, lies in the technologist's instinct to repair. The bots were bad, but they are getting better. Every release is a beta for a better build.

A panel of experts pointed up many of the flaws in what we’d witnessed. The bots couldn't evaluate witnesses’ body language. They couldn’t season their judgment with human experience. Bots can't be a jury of a human’s peers.

That wasn't the scariest part for me.

The scariest part was at the end, when an audience member next to me said to a colleague, "that's the best the bots have done yet.”

I deleted the original post because it lacked the important context that a panel of experts considered and largely condemned what we'd witnessed.

The jury deliberates.