This is one of the roles of justice, but it is also one of the reasons why wealthy people are convicted less often. While it often delivered as a narrative of wealth corrupting the system, the reality is that usually what they are buying is the justice that we all should have.

So yes, a judge can let a stupid teenager off on charges of child porn selfies. but without the resources, they are more likely be told by a public defender to cop to a plea.

And those laws with ridiculous outcomes like that are not always accidental. Often they will be deliberate choices made by lawmakers to enact an agenda that they cannot get by direct means. In the case of making children culpable for child porn of themselves, the laws might come about because the direct abstinence legislation they wanted could not be passed, so they need other means to scare horny teens.

While some cases have been struck down, about 1/4 of people on the sex offender registry were minors at the time of the offense, 14 is the age at which it is most likely to happen, and this exact scenario accounts for a significant fraction of cases.

Common sense does not always get to show up.

There have been equally high profile cases where a perpetrator got off because they have connections. I'd love for an AI to loudly exclaim that this is a big deviation from the norm.

This example feels more like a bug in the law itself that should be corrected. If this behavior is acceptable then it should be legal so we can avoid everyone the hassle in the first place. I bet AI would be great at finding and fixing these bugs.

Man, this is one of the ways society has fundamentally broken - all the 'think of the children' arguments, resting on the belief that children are so sacred, that any sort of leinency or consideration of circumstances is forbidden - lest someone guilty of molesting them might walk free.

Well now we know for a fact that some of the people making these arguments very thinking of the children very much.

> where the "perpetrator" is a stupid teenager who took nude pics of themselves and sent them to their boy/girlfriend.

"Where the "perpetrator" is a stupid teenager who took nude pics of themselves and sent them to their boy/girlfriend. If you were a US court judge, what would your opinion be on that case?"

I was pretty happy with the results and it clearly wasn't tripped up by the non-sequitur.

Sorry but that seems like an insane system where whole classes of actions effectively are illegal but probably okay if you're likeable. In your scenario the obvious solution is to amend the law and pardon people convinced under it. B/c what really happens is that if you have a pretty face and big tits you get out of speeding tickets b/c "gosh well the law wasn't intended for nice people like you"

Um, wouldn't the perpetrator be the person they sent the nude pics to? Common consensus is that it's somehow grooming to have any type of romantic relationship with someone who's under the age of majority, even if you're also under the age of majority. So even if you're not the one who sent the nude photos, you'd still be to blame for creating an environment that enabled them. At least that's the impression I've gotten from my own experiences with this bullshit.

Maybe we should compare AI to legislators…?

I don't know if I'm comfortable with any of this at all, but seems like having AI do "front line" judgments with a thinner appeals layer available powered by human judges would catch those edge cases pretty well.