Can there be an algorithm of justice?

Last week, The Boston Globe ran a story that proposed replacing judges with computers:
"But what if ''John Roberts" were not a human being but a piece of artificial intelligence software - a robot with the whole of law mapped out neatly in his circuit boards? Granted, the resulting Roberts-bot would not offer the personal charms of the wry, unflappably affable human Roberts. But consistency, predictability - surely those count for something."
The premise has so many fundamental epistemological flaws, I don't really know where to begin. But I'd at least like to point out how these might shed light on the limits of the "originalist" (i.e., non-interpretive) position. I doubt even Justice Scalia would argue that he could - or should - be replaced by a computer program.

No comments: