program judge?

hey guys i was thinking how crazy it would be if there was a program judge to which you submitted all evidence data, testimonies, etc and it came up with a veredict and sentence if there is any
-no more briberies, all criminals would get it
-it can be refined to get the fairest judgements, a real science could come up from that
-it doesnt need to have AI, just a function that takes input and produces decisions, no fear of robot overlords

That's not crazy, that's what should be.

What.

Well, yeah. The justice system is fundamentally flawed in being run by humans. Persuasion, rhetoric, error, emotion, and error all play a role in perverting the course of justice, especially with a panel of 12 plebs ultimately deciding the fate of the trial.

Why bother having courts? Do the police really arrest enough innocent people to justify such a wasteful expense?

>>5 Not when they are forced to prove their case, no.  But take that away and the cops start murdering people.  Every.  Time.

Judges exist to interpret the law based on precedent, constitution, community standards, and circumstance, not to algorithmically rule verdicts. Your argument is invalid.

Judges are masonic (active) pedophiles, your argument is invalid.

This is a stupid idea that's been around at least since the dawn of personal computing.

>>1
Go back to AGDG.

It's funny how a dozen or so plumbers, housewives, toilet scrubbers, maybe one guy with a Bachelor's degree in something totally unrelated to justice, and maybe a couple (white|black) supremacists, can be the arbiters of your freedom.

>>10 It's the best we could do on short notice.  Sorry about the next ten years

>>8
Your argument is an ad hominem logical fallacy, your argument is invalid.

The real question, if we determine judge and jury can be adequately simulated by a finite state machine, is who would you trust to define the states that go directly to jail?

>>13
Me. Elect me dictator and I promise to be an impartial mediator of justice. Cruel, but fair.

Meh. The same thing can be done in politics, just applying mathematics. Ah like >>9 said, suggested before. I think the results were, that for civil cases it is an incredible stupid idea. For criminal cases, with evidence, it works more efficient than humans. But will not be implement anywhere because it needs a judge to sign it, and in the case of a law update, new interpretation needs to be added.
Regardless, we use bots for finance. They work wonders in Nasdaq.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

You are a weed smoker, aren't you?  This program judge of yours will be h4xx0r3d or otherwise subverted in no time.  Imagine the stakes.