Computers have been programmed to do just about anything today and very little they do still raises eyebrows. Well, that was until a software program was developed to decide the fate of suspects on trial in a court of law within minutes.

Zichuan People's Court, Zibo City, in east China's Shandong Province has taken a leap of faith in the direction of computer logic. Judges there now input case details into a computer, which automatically calculates the appropriate verdicts. This innovative move in China's judicial system speeds up the work of the court and standardizes procedures, but expectedly not everyone in the loop is happy.

Chief Judge Wang Hongmei of Zichuan District Court explained: "We developed the system to prevent judicial power abuse." Statistics show that, in recent years, China's criminal cases have seen a 60 percent rise in appeals against arbitrary rulings, half of which were caused by unfair imprisonment terms. Since the sentencing software was introduced in 2003, Zichuan Court has seen a marked drop in appeals to courts of a higher level.

Previous reports described the computer sentencing as a judge, but Wang said strictly speaking, it is not computer sentencing, but rather standard sentencing.

The full name of the electronic judge developed in China is the Standardized Sentencing Software Management System. It is a tailored system that can calculate the appropriate prison sentences for the 100 most commonly occurring crimes and input another thousand cases for reference.

The sentencing procedure is the major task of this software. In addition, it is also equipped with legal rules and regulations, judicial explanations and cases for academic study. As to the judges, it previously cost them a great deal of time to recall similar cases, but now that's available at the click of a mouse. Even the calculation of prison terms can be offered by the system, which raises the efficiency of sentencing from several weeks to a couple of minutes.

Before this system, the United States had applied the world's first computer intelligence system in assisting verdicts as early as 1981. The system program, abbreviated as LDS, was developed in a few modes covering obligation, negligence and compensation to set standard terms for any subtle difference in varied cases of the same crime. Chinese professionals began their work on legal software development in the mid- 1980s. The criminal sentencing system, created by Professor Zhao Yanguang from Wuhan University in 1993, is capable of searching legal codes and providing verdicts for criminal cases.

Those who support the electronic sentences believe it could avoid corruption in the judicial system. However, some people doubt how much the system can restrain abuse of discretionary power.

Though controversial, the Shandong Provincial Court has recommended the software to all courts within the province after testing for two years in Zichuan. In March, the Zichuan District Court had received positive comments from China's Supreme People's Court for its intelligent system.

Electronic assistant

Wang Hongmei (chief judge of the Zichuan Court): The dominant authority in sentencing is the standard regulations, but the software acts as an assistant in giving verdicts. However, it is the judges who make the final decisions. Judges are there to facilitate them to make the correct decisions.

Wang Jiandong (court president of the Zichuan Court): I am pretty sure that the ongoing sentencing by software is great progress for China's judicial future. Chinese judges have more discretionary power than their foreign counterparts, yet in rural areas, such as the southwest and northwest part of Shandong Province, the under-trained judicial staff can be assisted by the software.

Zhang Baosheng (Vice Dean of the China Political Science and Law University): The program avoids outside interference when making judicial decisions. As equal and fair as the university and college admission process to Chinese students, the sentencing will correct human mistakes to give fair verdicts and on another level curb corruption.

Computerized assistance will break the monopoly of judges and lawyers in controlling legal knowledge, in the same way the Internet gives ordinary people the chance to express themselves, and of course communication leads to shared information. Software of this kind will inevitably become weapons for defendants to protect and guarantee their lawful rights. I think a system that can deal with complicated cases and judicial reasoning will be the trend for future decades.

Xue Feng (Deputy Director of the Beijing Court Research Institute): The new legal software is essentially a trial practice to introduce the idea of hi-tech assistants. To improve accuracy and efficiency the software will not take the place of judges, but be used as a source of reference.

Practically, whether the accused is guilty or not, which category the crime belongs to, and how to punish the convicted, are major issues of the trial. In this respect, the conviction is the basis of sentencing, while the verdicts will be the final decision of the trial. The appearance of unfair judgments requires the assistance of the software.

Zhao Guangrui (writer with Guangming Website): Justice is the warrant for social fairness. The public's low confidence in justice indicates a lack of trust and confidence from society, who demands judicial reforms. Perhaps the introduction of this scientific method could be a solution. Human decisions are not always objective, therefore the software verdicts may help in this regard.

Some argue that the software cannot be suitable for every detailed case, and therefore should not be used. Nonetheless, in Western countries, our counterparts are also turning to hi-tech for help when it is necessary, for instance, the usage of the lie detector.

In accordance with China's current criminal procedure laws, the discretionary power can only be applied by judges. In theory, the discretionary power is the power of the people, endowed by authority, and the people can deprive the judges of their power if they commit malpractice. In that case if the computer sentences are reliable, they should be used. Using the software to curb the power of ill-trained or corrupt judges can also help to bring a more just and legal environment in China.

Whatever the methods adopted, the aim is to reinforce legal authority and to prevent corruption. Without more effective solutions, the software is worth a try.

Liang Jiangtao (commentator of Zhejiang online): A computer calculation will measure verdicts. Every citizen can input the detail of cases and get the results. With reference to related stipulations and provisions, the process will also be a course of legal case study for common people.

Moreover, this is also a way to be protected from the abuse of a judge's power. For the judges, the software could be an aid to prevent them from misbehavior and making errors.

'Byting' off too much

Liu Hongyu (National People's Congress representative, Beijing lawyer): In some cases, computer decisions play positive roles, for example, to restrain the discretionary power of judges, and therefore gain the trust of defendants, and for appeals reduction. However, that could not offset its two obvious flaws and defects:

First of all, the scope of the software usage will be limited in various cases with subtle distinctions. Despite being a similar case to the computer, the initial intention of criminals causes varied damage to society, which needs flexibility in verdicts. That is why we authorize our judges to take control of the discretionary power to secure the dignity and seriousness of laws.

The second, and the most important, is that judges will have a negative effect. If courts of different levels all over the country produce their standardized software at will, the ill-trained or under-educated local judges could not necessarily guarantee the legal system's reasonable and scientific structure. For proper and accurate prison terms, China's criminal procedural laws are in need of strict trial procedures, and only qualified judges are authorized to make final decisions. If the computer plays the role of judge, the legal authority will be lowered to a point where human brains are dominated by digital programs. What is more, that could excuse the laziness of judges, and perhaps help them escape the criticism of injustice, since they will use computers as standard assistants.

Meng Shan (commentator of China Times): Obviously, machinery can never take the place of rational thoughts and the logic of people. In real life every detailed case may vary with subtle distinctions. In this regard, computers are helpless.

Justice could be corrected by hi-tech sometimes, but it is not the ultimate solution. Fundamentally, we should strengthen our judicial system to accommodate every case and every defendant. What we need are well-trained judges, improved surveillance systems and appropriate methods to curb floating discretionary power to restore the trust and confidence of the public.

One thing I am concerned about is why so many people are in support of the computer judges. At most, they can avoid abuse of judicial power and corruption. If confidence is restored in the way our judges operate we won't need software of this kind.

Xiao Bo (writer with the Guangming Website): It is undeniable that digital devices are subordinates; the key is whether to use them or not. When the jury cannot give the correct penalty to criminals, they may refer to computers. Nonetheless, this demonstrates the low level of professional knowledge and working experience in our judicial system. which is unacceptable. The public will question the capability of our judges. If the computer can solve everything, what is the purpose of having a judge? To my view, the collaboration between judges and computers is a farce to lower people's opinion of our judicial system.