Murder On Kanker: A Daring Clash With AI
The Trial: A Battle of Human Ingenuity vs. AI Logic
The Case Against the Accused
What will AI judge?
On the night of August 15th, a tragic murder took place on Kanker Street, which is located near the couple’s residence and in close proximity to a supermarket. The victim of the heinous crime was the wife, and her husband has been accused of perpetrating the act between 10 and 11 pm inside their vehicle.
As per the husband’s testimony, he states that he and his wife had just returned from a dinner date, during which they enjoyed a pleasant and uneventful meal.
However, their peaceful atmosphere took a turn when they started to engage in an argument during their drive back home. The subject of the disagreement revolved around the husband’s ongoing financial challenges.
Just before reaching their home, the couple realized they needed groceries and decided to make a quick stop at a nearby supermarket. However, their plans took a turn when they engaged in yet another argument which left him feeling increasingly irritated.
According to the husband’s account, he exited the car in a state of agitation, and during the process, his wife reached out and grabbed his hand. Nonetheless, he forcefully pulled away from her grasp to proceed with buying the groceries. He asserts that this resulted in scratches on his arm caused by his wife’s fingernails.
Upon returning to the car with the groceries, the husband found his wife stabbed and unresponsive. Distraught, he held her before rushing back to the store and asking the attendant to call the police.
The police arrived at the scene and, after conducting an investigation, he was arrested on suspicion of murdering his wife.
It was a challenging case, presenting a formidable challenge for any defence lawyer concerned about their professional reputation, given the substantial evidence — right or wrong — stacked against the defendant.
Unstoppable AI
I was in my mid-50s now, and I found myself in the golden years of my legal career. Although my movements were slower, my mind remained as sharp as ever, perhaps even sharper.
I’ll admit, I had a Machiavellian streak that helped me navigate the complexities of the legal system and outfox my opponents.
In any case, the last few years have seen me take up a more behind-the-scenes role as a case consultant, as I’ve grown to detest the rising trend — whether justified or not — that’s emerged in recent times.
Gone were the days when lawyers won cases in court solely based on their level of preparedness and the trickery of their wits. Now, with the advent of AI robots programmed with every law and principle in science and the arts, the legal landscape has shifted.
The media called it a brave new world and the widespread opinion was that its ability to work based on facts alone made AI robots highly capable hands in any case.
However, I saw it as the most devastating mockery of the human race.
The case I just described was narrated to me by a former student who had rushed into my office earlier, his face a portrait of anxiety and desperation
He had a week to prepare his client’s defence, but he was still struggling to come up with a strong strategy. He asked me to take the lead, which surprised me as he had a superb record and I couldn’t understand why he was so anxious about the case.
It wasn’t until he brought up the name of the prosecuting lawyer that I understood his unease. The AI barrister known as Legalis was on the other side of the case.
Legalis had gained a formidable reputation in the criminal law world, to say the least.
He had won every case he had prosecuted to date, and going up against him was considered a futile effort. With such an advanced machine, it was challenging to contest, and some might even consider it unjust.
Basking in the glory of my past successes, I had become increasingly disinterested in taking on new cases in recent years. However, the chance to tangle with the famed Legalis was too great to resist.
Well, one last razzle-dazzle in court then.
Order in Court
When a lawyer enters the court on the first day of trial, the weight of the unknown settles heavily on their shoulders.
They may have spent weeks, months, or even years poring over evidence, strategizing arguments, and anticipating every possible contingency. Yet, the first day feels like you are entering uncharted territory.
Regardless of brilliance or experience, that one question always lingers somewhere in your head, taunting and teasing you — have I done enough?
Legalis had just completed his cross-examination of his witness as the trial began, and now it was time for the defence to cross-examine the witness.
The first witness to take the stand was the supermarket attendant. According to her testimony, the defendant had entered the store with the intention of purchasing some groceries.
The witness testified that the suspect appeared visibly angry when he entered the store.
When the attendant inquired about his well-being, he purportedly responded with a disrespectful remark, instructing her to mind her own business and when she voiced her objections, he allegedly retorted, saying, “Woman, I don’t give a shit about you.”
According to the attendant’s testimony, she observed bruises on the suspect’s hand when he initially visited the store. On his second visit, she noticed he was covered in blood and asked her to contact the police.
Based on his behaviour that night, she formed the belief that he was the person responsible for the crime.
Following her testimony, the expressions on the faces of the jury ranged from shock to disgust. They had been presented with a narrative involving a man who entered a store and exhibited rude behaviour towards an attendant who was simply trying to assist him.
To make matters worse, he had made sexist remarks towards her, further adding to the negative perception of his character.
It was important to be strategic in my approach to questioning the witness. If I were too aggressive, it could potentially damage my client’s case even more in the eyes of the jury.
I asked Miss Dean, “Have you ever been in a situation where you did something wrong in your childhood and hoped your mother wouldn’t catch you?” She responded affirmatively, indicating that she had experienced such a situation.
Building upon that, I asked, “And how did you feel after doing such a thing?” Miss Dean responded, stating that she felt scared.
Continuing my line of questioning, I added with a touch of humour, “In my personal experience, when I did something wrong in my younger days, such as taking extra meat from the cooking pot — God bless my mum for never pressing charges — I would often feel a mix of emotions like being nervous, suspicious, and awkward.
However, one thing I can confidently say is that I never felt anger in such situations. Miss Dean, based on your agreement earlier, would you say that anger is not typically the immediate emotional response after committing a wrongful act, especially one that involves someone so close to you?
It seems we agree on the fact that emotions such as guilt, fear, or remorse tend to prevail in such circumstances. Would you concur with that assessment?” She nodded affirmatively.
I proceeded, stating that it’s understandable for someone going through financial difficulties to experience stress and not always behave in the most cordial manner and that does not automatically make you a murderer.
Again, I reminded her and the court that there was no concrete evidence directly linking my client to the crime. Her testimony, on the other hand, was based solely on her subjective interpretation of his demeanour, which may be influenced by personal biases or perceptions.
Thanking the witness, I noted her testimony’s significance. Assessing the jury, I sought signs of doubt. Encouraged by the seed of uncertainty planted, I strategized for the trial’s next phase. Determined, I aimed to strengthen my client’s defence further.
Battling a Damning Account
Residing in a modest shack on the street, the second witness, a beggar, attested to his acquaintance with the couple. According to the beggar’s testimony, the husband had always been generous to him.
During his testimony, the witness described stepping out of his humble shack late at night when he noticed a disturbance happening in a car about 10 meters away. He witnessed a struggle between two individuals, and shortly after, the man quickly exited the vehicle.
According to the witness, it was the accused who exited the car, and during that moment, their eyes locked. Feeling threatened, the witness quickly retreated to his shack.
He confidently stated that he could identify the accused as the husband, based on his familiarity with the couple and his strong belief that the person who emerged from the car was indeed the defendant.
Moreover, the witness confirmed his familiarity with the couple’s vehicles, accurately identifying their second car. He stressed that he only became aware of the woman’s murder when the authorities arrived at the scene and notified him of the tragic event.
Challenged by the weight of the testimony, I embarked on discrediting the witness’s account to cast doubt on its credibility and accuracy, determined to defend my client.
Mr Cole, allow me to clarify. Isn’t it true that earlier on the day of the incident, you approached my client on the street for alms, as you usually do? And during that interaction, my client firmly expressed to you, and I quote, “You need to get off your ass and go get a job like every other person.”
“Well, I did not see the importance of stating this in my testimony,” Mr Cole replied. “I understand, Mr Cole. However, for the sake of clarity, I kindly request a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response,” I insisted.
Upon his affirmative response, an objection was raised by Cross. Nonetheless, I intervened and assured the court that I would alter my line of questioning.
I acknowledged that although this detail might appear tangential, it was imperative for the jury to be aware of it in order to evaluate any potential biases or prejudices harboured by the witness.
Proceeding, I probed the witness on a different line of questioning. “I noticed that you have been squinting with one eye since you entered the courtroom. Is there an issue with your eye?”
“Yes, I do squint with my right eye. It started a few years ago after I was involved in a street fight. However, I want to assure you that despite the squint, my vision is clear, and it does not affect my ability to see and perceive things accurately.”
“I appreciate your confidence in your eyesight, Mr Cole. While I respect your assurance, I believe it would be beneficial to conduct a test to ensure a thorough examination of the matter. This will help address any concerns and provide a clearer understanding for the court.”
“Mr Cole, if you could kindly turn around for a moment, it would greatly assist in presenting my theory to the jury,” I requested, shifting my attention towards the jury, ready to articulate my perspective.
“As the defendant claims that the car involved in the murder was approximately 10 meters away from his residence, I would like to provide a visual representation for the jury’s understanding,” I clarified.
Stepping away from the witness stand. Inviting two court attendants to join me on the same line, I took 13 paces towards the rear of the courtroom as an equivalent, emphasizing the distance of 10 meters in question.
I arranged for two look-alikes who wore similar clothing prior to the court proceedings. In a daring move, I asked Mr Cole to turn and identify me among the three individuals standing before him. With careful positioning on the right of the three, I heightened the anticipation as we awaited his response.
All eyes were on Mr Cole as he scrutinized the three individuals. After a moment of hesitation, he pointed to the person in the middle and incorrectly identified them as me. The courtroom reacted with a gasp, realizing the implications of his mistaken identification.
Legalis promptly objected, arguing that the test did not invalidate Mr Cole’s identification, as he had only met me briefly compared to his regular encounters with the suspect on the street.
He maintained that this demonstration did not prove that Mr Cole had mistaken the identity of the person involved in the struggle.
In my final moments of cross-examination, I skillfully questioned the witness’s credibility, pointing out inconsistencies and potential biases.
I emphasized the influence of familiarity and the potential for mistaken identity. My aim was to instil doubt in the minds of the jury, casting shadows over the reliability of the witness’s testimony.
“We must exercise caution and avoid rushing to judgment based solely on the testimony of one witness, particularly considering the questionable reliability of his vision. Let us examine this witness with scrutiny, taking into account his circumstances.
This individual has lived a life of invisibility, overlooked by society and deprived of recognition. In his middle age, he has become a silent observer, watching others succeed while remaining unnoticed and neglected.”
“But just when it seemed like his life would be devoid of any remarkable events, an extraordinary occurrence thrusts him into the spotlight. And mark my words, he will seize every moment of his newfound fame.
Desperate to be heard and acknowledged, he boldly asserts that he witnessed the identity of the murderer, casting himself as the hero in this tragic narrative.”
“Believe me, I share the desire for this man to be hailed as a hero just as much as all of you. However, we cannot allow his yearning for recognition to jeopardize an innocent man’s life. I have no further inquiries for this witness.”
A Legal Showdown with AI
At this stage, Legalis proceeded to deliver his closing arguments, presenting a compelling case based on the testimonies of the witnesses examined.
My co-chair, adept at reading facial expressions, closely observed the reactions of the jury throughout the trial, determining that we were currently trailing the prosecution by a margin of five jurors.
With a notable deficit of five jurors in favour of the prosecution, a pivotal moment in the trial necessitated a bold move to reshape the jurors’ perception.
Recognizing that character witnesses alone might not suffice, I contemplated a more compelling strategy to dismantle the prosecution’s narrative and inject reasonable doubt into the minds of the jurors.
In a daring manoeuvre, I made the unconventional decision to call the prosecution lawyer as my own witness, embracing my reputation as a “wily old fool”.
It was a high-risk gamble, but one that held the potential to tip the scales in our favour.
“The court acknowledges that calling the opposing lawyer as a witness is an unconventional approach,” the judge remarked. “However, before deciding on the request, I kindly ask you to present a compelling justification for why it is necessary to have the opposing lawyer testify.”
Your Honour, I am requesting to call the opposing lawyer as a witness to highlight the distinction between human cognition and machine-like logic.
The prosecution has relied on a seemingly objective and algorithmic case, but it is essential for the jury to grasp the nuances of human thinking and reasoning.
By hearing directly from the prosecuting lawyer, we can illuminate possible loopholes in the prosecution’s approach.
“I apologize, Counsel, but your justification fails to establish a direct relevance of the opposing lawyer to this murder case. Therefore, this court cannot grant your request.”
“Your Honour, if I may interject, I am prepared to accommodate opposing counsel’s unconventional request and act as his witness.” It appears that even robots have their pride, but given their vast knowledge, one can understand their disposition.”
He assumed the position in the witness box, and I aimed to systematically dismantle his case.
You assert that my client is guilty of the murder based on your claim that it is suspicious for him to have conveniently forgotten the knife in the glove compartment, given that he typically carries it for protection.
Furthermore, you emphasize the presence of only his and his wife’s fingerprints in the car as incriminating evidence against him.
I inquired whether Legalis had ever forgotten an item, to which he responded negatively. I then proceeded to ask if he had ever lost an item, and once again, his answer was negative.
Continuing, I queried Legalis if he had ever experienced love, to which he responded in the negative. I followed up by asking if he had ever felt pain and sadness, but before he could answer, I interjected and declared that I was already aware of his response.
Addressing the jury, I shifted my attention towards them.
“Members of the jury, I urge you to consider the limitations of relying solely on artificial intelligence in a matter as profound and nuanced as this.
Can a machine truly comprehend the intricacies of human experience and emotions? Can it navigate the grey areas, the uncertainties, and the moral dilemmas that arise in a case like this?
We must question the reliability and understanding of the AI’s perspective and approach. The stakes are too high to entrust the fate of a human being solely to the calculations and algorithms of a machine.
I want to acknowledge the impressive analytical capabilities of this AI, but it’s important to recognize the limitations of relying solely on statistical analysis and data.
While Legalis has presented compelling data, we must remember that we are here to make a judgment on a situation that goes beyond mere numbers and statistics.
We are tasked with evaluating the human aspect of this tragic event, and that requires a deeper understanding and consideration of the complexities involved.
Yes, the prosecution has presented a sequence of events that appears to align with the statistical evidence against my client.
However, it is important to consider the significant possibility that if this incident was indeed a burglary gone wrong, the perpetrator could have taken precautions such as wearing gloves, which would explain the absence of additional fingerprints at the scene.
We must be cautious in drawing definitive conclusions based on statistics alone, as they can sometimes overlook crucial contextual factors.
Moreover, the notion that DNA evidence should have been present at the crime scene is a fallacy. It is entirely possible that the burglar, if indeed there was one, for all we know could have been hairless, reducing the likelihood of DNA traces.
It is crucial to recognize that Legalis, being a trained prosecutor, is inclined to prioritize numerical data, hence his omission of these alternative possibilities.
I implore you, esteemed members of the jury, to consider the full spectrum of human understanding when assessing the guilt or innocence of my client.
While the prosecution has presented its case based on algorithms and statistics, it is essential to remember that the complexities of human experiences cannot be reduced to mere numbers.
I trust you will weigh the evidence with empathy and wisdom, ensuring a fair and just verdict. Thank you for your attention.”
As the trial drew to a conclusion, I anxiously awaited the jury’s decision, hoping that my arguments had resonated with them. Now, I could only place my trust in the justice system and await the verdict.
After a few hours of deliberation, the jury returned with their verdict: The man was found innocent!
The verdict served as a testament to the significance of human emotions and the limitations of AI in replicating the complexities of human experiences.
The trial’s outcome reaffirmed that while AI can aid in analysis and decision-making, there are aspects of humanity that cannot be replaced by machines.
