Lecture by Ms Pamela N. Gray – Saturday 26th August 2006
Locals enjoy some futile fishing in the Ganges River. The total length of the river is about 2,510 km which may still be shorter than the human reasoning process involved in a sexual assault case.
The eGanges ‘River paradigm’, according to Ms Gray, has been used extensively for quality control in manufacturing processes. Indeed expert systems seem to have a wide scope for application in any process that operates within a ‘closed system’. However ‘Systems analysis’, (which is a logical foundation for the building of expert systems), becomes inherently uncertain in open system environments. Whilst manufacturing processes may involve interactions that are clearly determinable and can be readily ‘isomorphised’ into computer based expert systems, they are by nature, largely ‘closed systems’. Furthermore manufacturing processes are by and large, devoid of humanistic interactions. On the contrary human decision making processes are generally ‘open systems’ and bereft of the mathematical methodology that is characteristic of manufacturing processes and so complaisant to isomorphism.
Decision making in Law is not only an open system, the theories of jurisprudence seem to conflict with one of the important assumptions of expert systems. That is Law is not and can never be a system of easily interpreted rules. There is human discretion at many levels and jurisprudence theory tells us that eliminating this discretion can undermine the adversarial, common law quest for justice. Ms Gray recounted a court room example of a barrister, in cross-examination of an alleged victim of a sexual assault, who was able to adduce evidence that supported the defendant’s case. I wish to invite comment on how eGanges may have been able to deal with this situation to the satisfaction of the prosecution? Ms Gray’s suggestion was that it can do so quite easily. The Uniform Evidence Act is not explicit on how this should be done so I cannot imagine how any expert system can offer a quick solution.
![Po - [Explored]](http://static.flickr.com/7225/7260527994_23e4e5f04b_t.jpg "Po - [Explored]")
You raise some pertinent points about the e-ganges lecture. Ive blogged about it myself and i am inclined to agree with you. I think the example of the sexual assault case demonstrated someone simply was not switched on enough to realise what was going on in the case. It did not need a sophisticated system like e-ganges – a bit of experience and quick-thinking is probably what was lacking there. I was not convinced the example posed was the most compelling reason for using a system like e-ganges.
I think the danger of relying on such systems is that the lawyer will rely more so on such systems for procedural steps which means they will lose the skills that makes lawyers “lawyers,” ie the ability to go through caselaw and statute to discern the state of the law for a particular case.
I think flexibility in terms of mirroring human discretion is the greatest weakness of expert systems because computers can’t exercise common sense in the same way as humans. I was also not entirely convinced with the effectiveness of an expert system in the sexual assault case.
The dangers of relying too much on expert systems is a very good point raised by Sachin above.I think expert systems can be used as a tool in areas like criminal law, but as a tool, it must be used and exercised with human sense and skill. Although the same might not necessarily be needed if it is being used for clear cut areas of law with little room for discretion that are administrative in nature.
I agreed on lochness33 about an experted system should be exercised with human sense and skill, which is not just totally relying on tool
even judges could make mistake…
I guess the issue will come down to how much trust you can place on a tool like eGanges
and to sachinsuch’s point, I guess a system can also assist you to go through caselaw and statute to discern the state of the law for a particular case, from the information being shown on the screen.
similar to the way that you are refering to your hand written notes on a piece of paper.
Pingback: eGanges « Computer Law People no.99