law and society

AMA - I recently served as a juror on a murder trial. The crime happened within the last five years, and the trial happened within the last six months. I'm happy to discuss anything about my experience except:

• The exact time and location of the crime
• The names of the people involved

Those restrictions are to protect the family members involved in the case, and to protect me in case a family member doesn't like the jurors :|

Any other question is fair game.

And I'll answer the most salient question here first: we did find the defendant guilty of murder.

AI, cameras, drones, and an attempt at a construct-aware take on “crime”. Companies like Flock claim their traffic cameras, drones, and AI can reduce crime to nothing. 

There are Minority Report concerns but they try to say they that 10% of reported crime is solved by Flock. 

here's my issue: all the claims and statistics assume an agreed upon definition of crime. But clearly we don't agree: is abortion a crime? What about immigration? Gun ownership? Pollution?

crime never existed / doesn't / will always depending on the frame we take. We have to take a frame—not trying to go all postmodern here—but I'd like to be more honest and self-aware of it. I'd like to claim our direction, and where we're coming from: fear or love? I think we'd build different systems with more evolutionary processes and back doors, for example. We'd ask questions like "how does crime fit with forgiveness, accountability with love, safety with the illusion of ego and control? Idk, just trying to put some provocative questions out to point to deeper (as in more causative) structures at play here.

i love police and want to transcend and include traditional definitions of safety, in the same way uptrust transcends and includes algorithms.

What do you think?

AI, cameras, drones, and an attempt at a construct-aware take on “crime”. Companies like Flock claim their traffic cameras, drones, and AI can reduce crime to nothing. 

There are Minority Report concerns but they try to say they that 10% of reported crime is solved by Flock. 

here's my issue: all the claims and statistics assume an agreed upon definition of crime. But clearly we don't agree: is abortion a crime? What about immigration? Gun ownership? Pollution?

crime never existed / doesn't / will always depending on the frame we take. We have to take a frame—not trying to go all postmodern here—but I'd like to be more honest and self-aware of it. I'd like to claim our direction, and where we're coming from: fear or love? I think we'd build different systems with more evolutionary processes and back doors, for example. We'd ask questions like "how does crime fit with forgiveness, accountability with love, safety with the illusion of ego and control? Idk, just trying to put some provocative questions out to point to deeper (as in more causative) structures at play here.

i love police and want to transcend and include traditional definitions of safety, in the same way uptrust transcends and includes algorithms.

What do you think?