Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Programmed Sentencing in China

Posted by Zonk on Thu Sep 14, 2006 01:26 PM
from the enjoy-your-stay-in-the-bighouse-meatbag dept.
An anonymous reader writes to mention a unique combination of coding and social justice. A court in China has been using software to mete out sentences in criminal cases. The program has been in use for almost two years, and has passed judgement in some 1,500 cases. From the article: "'The software can avoid abuse of discretionary power of judges as a result of corruption or insufficient training,' the paper quoted Zichuan District Court chief judge, Wang Hongmei, as saying. But some Chinese newspapers criticized the move as a farce that highlighted the 'laziness of the court' and that would not curb judicial corruption as touted."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:27PM (#16106987)
    Would that be the same as a life sentence?
    • A forever loop made Earthly authorities always has conditional statement (i.e., if (reallyBadIdea) break loop;). An infinite loop made by a Higher Authority would be consider tough luck even in hell.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:57PM (#16107328)
      In communist China, the computer hangs you!
  • Yay human rights! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TJ_Phazerhacki (520002) <<ellomdian> <at> <gmail.com>> on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:28PM (#16107001) Journal
    I for one fear our new robotic sentencing overlords. Seriously, this is rediculous - why not have a better judicial monitoring system if you care about the people?

    Oh wait....

    • by TopShelf (92521) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:51PM (#16107251) Homepage Journal
      From TFA:
      Despite campaigns to reform China's courts, judicial abuses, official influence and arbitrary sentencing remain a widespread concern, particularly in lower courts where many judges have not even been to law school.


      It sounds like this can be a tool to help standardize the application of the law, which varies widely from place to place. That's a step in the right direction. No, it's not going to result in a "perfect" legal system, but it could help improve things.
    • Re:Yay human rights! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by timeOday (582209) on Thursday September 14 2006, @03:55PM (#16108565)
      Well, wait a minute... what is law in the first place, if not a "procedure" for judging real-life situations and doling out punishment? In the good old days, King David would solve problems creatively, e.g. proposing to cut a baby in half if two women claimed to be the mother. But now we have laws, which are supposed to reduce justice to following a set of steps. No current computer technology could hear out complex arguments and decide whether to render a "not guilty" verdict, but sentencing seems simpler yet more arbitrary, so perhaps a "jail calculator" isn't such a terrible idea. I know I wouldn't want to be sentenced by a judge who had a fight with his wife that morning.
  • Remember the robot world?
  • The computer is your friend.
  • I first read the title as "Programmer Sentencing in China."

    I was thinking, man, when they say no Hungarian notation, they mean it!
    • by Sabaki (531686)
      My first thought on seeing the headline was that they had mastered natural language parsing and were writing programmatically generated sentences.
  • The Therac-25 [wikipedia.org] incident? Should we trust the programmers with people's lives?
  • by mordors9 (665662) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:32PM (#16107057)
    My understanding is this method won out over the Magic 8 ball or picking a fortune cooke out of a hat.
  • Moo (Score:5, Funny)

    by Chacham (981) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:36PM (#16107106) Homepage Journal
    while (thereAreCases()) {
      defendant = defendant.getNext();
      defendant.innocent = (defendant.powerful || defendant.powerful);
      if (!defendant.innocent) firingSquad.add(defendant);
      else firingSquad.add(prosecutor);
    }
  • by dave562 (969951) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:36PM (#16107107) Journal
    I just had this visual of this poor Chinese guy surrounded by a bunch of blinking screens, his hand hovering over a big red button, praying, "No whammies, no whammies!!"
  • by ptr2004 (695756) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:38PM (#16107118)
    a KILLER APP
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Now that's what i call an executable!
  • Sounds Insane: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Visaris (553352) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:38PM (#16107121) Journal
    I find this idea very scary...

    We live in a world where we are all criminals. Don't think you break any laws? Think again. Everyone who is old enough to read this post has broken many laws in their life, even if they were minor laws.

    When you live in a world where everyone is a criminal, the idea of a computer judge is very scary. The computer will not be able to make common sense decisions about what needs to be done to arrive at the judgement that is best for everyone.

    In a world with imperfect laws, enforcing the laws perfectly is immoral, unjust, and IMHO, just insane.

    'There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with'.
    - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Uhhh... no, everyone is not a criminal. That is why we have a difference between criminal and civil (torte?) law.
      • I suppose "criminal" does only apply to a subset of the current legislature. Thanks for the correction.
    • In a world with imperfect laws, enforcing the laws perfectly is immoral, unjust, and IMHO, just insane.

      Oh, don't worry, they know. This is just the first step. The next step is to have the laws written by computer programs, and then both the law and its enforcement will be perfect.

      It will be a beautiful utopia...

      Oh, hold on, there's an Enforce-o-bot at my door, come to execute me. Seems I'm guilty of excessive sarcasm. Which is true. See, the system works!
    • In a world with imperfect laws, enforcing the laws perfectly is immoral, unjust, and IMHO, just insane.
      No non-trivial software is perfect [murphys-laws.com].
    • I agree with you, yet...

      I don't see how that applies here.

      From my reading of the article, the software does not enforce laws, it enforces standardized sentencing.
      My understanding is that the software only plays a role once guilt has already been determined. Its meant to prevent the local judges (who, as the article stated often haven't even been to law school) from imposing arbitrary prison sentences. The details of the crime are submitted and the program returns the sentence according to the established st
    • Ok, the problem with what you said is that you are assuming that the computer is also the jury. From what I gathered, this is not the case. If the computer program is merely handing out sentences, this means that China has basically implemented mandatory sentencing with a computer system. It's just a bunch of if then else statements really. If you steal a car, and you are convicted by jury, you get 2 years in prison, etc... Some people don't like mandatory sentencing because they feel that a judge should ha
      • by Qzukk (229616)
        CRIMINALS CAN'T VOTE

        Sounds good for me, all I have to do is arrest all of the opponent's followers. Spitting on the sidewalk? Swearing on Sunday? Hitching your horse to a public post? There are thousands of century old laws on the books in cities, states, and even at the federal level that have no place in modern America, just waiting to be exploited.

        This is such a stupid quote. The primary power the government has is TAXES not criminal crackdowns.

        If there was no crackdown, who would pay the taxes? Whi
        • Sounds good for me, all I have to do is arrest all of the opponent's followers.

          And exactly how are you goint to determine that? And exactly how are you going to make that happen without the opposition party making sure it doesn't happen? And exactly why do you think your supporters would be in favor of you arresting everyone who opposes you?

          Let's live slightly in reality here.

          If there was no crackdown, who would pay the taxes? Which power begets the other?

          Most people pay taxes out of social resp

  • Computer: "I sentence you to [Blue Screen of Death]".

    Defendant: "But I only jaywalked!"

    Executioner: "The computer's judgement is final." ::readies blue tarp and axe::

  • by apillowofclouds (699564) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:40PM (#16107137)
    "It looks like you're trying to sentence someone. Would you like some help?"
  • "The software can avoid abuse of discretionary power of judges as a result of corruption or insufficient training," the paper quoted Zichuan District Court chief judge, Wang Hongmei, as saying.

    http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/art icles/2006/08/26/unusual_sentence_in_racial_attack / [boston.com]

    The scion of a prominent North Shore family avoided jail time yesterday for beating two black teenagers with a metal baton in 2002, but a judge imposed unusual consciousness-raising conditions on the young man fo

  • But some Chinese newspapers criticized the move as a farce that highlighted the 'laziness of the court' and that would not curb judicial corruption as touted."

    What kind of penalty does the software mete out to Chinese reporters who dare question the wisdom or methods of the courts?
  • by MalleusEBHC (597600) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:45PM (#16107195)
    It would be good to come up with (and make public) an algorithm for determining a sentence. It shouldn't automatically be entered as the official sentence, but then a judge would have a good baseline to go off of. If the judge wanted to make a significant increase or decrease to the sentence, they would need to demonstrate the extenuating circumstances. An added bonus is that there would be a quantitative metric for determining how judges are performing.

    Of course, the toughest part is creating a fair algorithm. But hey, in theory it has got potential.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by mobby_6kl (668092)
      >It would be good to come up with (and make public) an algorithm for determining a sentence.

      Here's a prototype:

      perl -e "$s = int(rand(99)); print qq(You are hereby sentenced to $s years of imprisonment\n)"

      This code is released under the BSD license, feel free to deploy it as-is or modify to fit your needs.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Atmchicago (555403)

      Using a computer algorithm to determine sentences is ridiculous. No two cases are the same, which means that there are an incredible number of variables. Furthermore, even if we could isolate all the variables, we still would have no idea how to make an algorithm that would take them all into account.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bunions (970377)
        You can say the same things about medical diagnoses - and yet, decision support software for doctors is used quite often.

        It's a guide and a method to keep tabs on the judicial record. I view it with cautious optimism.
    • Ah no.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by woolio (927141)
      How would the punishment of theft be related to the amount stolen?

      linear?
      quadratic?
      logarihtmic?

      If shoplifting a $20 "X" is a crime, when what about a CEO embezzling 100s of millions?

      Firing squad for the whole family? Execution by worms?

      Or what about murder? Even accidents involving negligence are punished... How should an army captain be punished? Or a police capatin?

  • by Ravear (923203) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:53PM (#16107272)
    the software comments yuo out!
  • I'll bet, if this is implemented in the U.S., that credit reporting data will be a large part of the sentencing formula.

    On an aside, one may order a consumer copy of their credit report from each of the three major credit bureaus free of charge per year at http://www.annualcreditreport.com/ [annualcreditreport.com] (one tip is to order a report from a different credit bureau every 4 months)

    Ron
  • So the software is made by the same company that makes those very accurate voting machines that I been reading about in Slashdot?
  • by Dekortage (697532) on Thursday September 14 2006, @02:01PM (#16107374) Homepage

    ...but we call it electronic voting [wikipedia.org]. The sentences have much bigger consequences, but are revised every four years.

    (tongue firmly planted in cheek!)

  • I worked for a company that had implemented a high-priced software package that tied logistics (shipping, BOM's etc.) and accounting together. The promise was streamlining warehouse and accounting across all of their subsidiaries/offices in other countries.

    So, the way accounting set things up was that they figuratively disconnected the accounting and logistics BOM/shipping/receiving systems such that the information provided for physical goods could not be accurate. How is that possible you may wonder? W
  • I'm sure the US court system has looked at something similar, but balked at the cost and complexity of factoring in how much the defendent spent on their lawyer.
  • An anonymous reader writes to mention...

    Anyone else find it interesting that the author of a post about Chinese government policies is Anonymous?
  • ..... Does it run on Windows? If so, then defendants are in REALLY big trouble if it does a BSOD.
  • Am I the only one who thought of Doctor Theophilus and the computer council of judges on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century?

    I was?

    I am so very ashamed.
  • Judges in this country use sentensing guidlines, a thick volume which essencially implements an algorithm for sentencing. Of course, everything is subject to appeal. The point is that a Judge's failure to follow the guideline can raise a red flag and he will have to defend his decision to deviate. That is the differance between algorithm w/ appeal versus no algorithm.
  • by wfberg (24378) on Thursday September 14 2006, @02:34PM (#16107701)
    A similar system has been in use in the Netherlands for some time. Not for judges, but for prosecutors. Most laws state e.g. that if you're guilty you "shalle be imprisoned for no longer than 10 years". Now, those maximum sentences are only applied if you've been a real asshole. If there are mitigating circumstances, you can expect some leniency. For example; you have no history of criminal behavior, you were provoked, etc. Those circumstances don't influence culpability, but they can influence sentencing.

    To help prosecutors in demanding a punishment that fits the crime, and more importantly to have prosecutors demand the same punishment in similar cases, regardless of jurisdiction, there's a piece of software to help them out. Just enter the specifics of the case, and the software will work out the sentence you should ask for based on a) guidelines given out by the national government, and b) comparisons to similar cases from a historical database.

    Now, the software just comes up with a suggestion, so the prosecutor can still say "well, in similar cases people have gotten 6 years in jail, but this guy's a real asshole based on characteristics I can't fill in on these forms, so he deserves to raise the average". Or the prosecutor can decide to stay on the lenient side. Whichever way though, if there's a discrepency from guidelines+case law, he'll have to explain it.

    Now, ultimately, it's still in the judge's hands. The judge may attach greater weight to certain mitigating circumstances, and less to others, and come up with a different sentence. But the judge is also aware of the guidelines and statistics.

    The reason for such a system is to increase the dependability of the judicial system. If two people commit the same crime, in the same manner, for the same reasons, and in the same circumstances, they should get the same punishment; justice, after all, should be blind.
    • by Tackhead (54550) on Thursday September 14 2006, @01:33PM (#16107059)
      > Chinese newspapers shut down by government.

      ...but Chinese hackers and copyright infringers released after paying court-software-mandated fines of $0.01 and serving 1337 seconds in jail.

      Cloud, silver lining, and all that.

    • by E-Rock (84950)
      Of course once the computer's decision on sentencing goes to a recommendation that is reviewed by a human, you lose the purported intention to "avoid abuse of discretionary power of judges."

      Maybe if a committe of legal scholars reviewed the cases to make sure the computer was doing what it was programmed, but that's a whole system to administer.
    • The main issue I have with this is distance. From the perspective of the accused, the laws were made by a big group of old men and women, hundreds if not thousands of miles away. The lawmakers are so far removed from the citizens that they don't ever totally understand the repercussions their laws are going to have on the public. If we remove the human judge, we will be bound just that much more completely by unjust laws that have unintended consequences.

      Human oversight would be better than nothing, bu
    • First of all, there's no real difference between using a computer to do the sentencing and using a rule book written on dead trees. It used to be that books were expensive enough that they were mostly used for important things, and books written by Authorities were Extra Important Sounding, but that's long gone. Now we've got computers, which get to sound Mysterious and Scientific at the same time. With computers, it's easier for the judge to say "See, the computer said it, it must be Authoritative", wit