Welcome to the launch of AI Law Today, where we embark on a thought-provoking journey to explore how AI is transforming legal systems worldwide, blending humor, ethics, and groundbreaking insights.
Episode Highlights:
The “Jolly Useful Tool” Debate
We discuss a controversial case from England involving a judge who used AI to draft a portion of his legal opinion. This story sets the stage for a broader exploration of whether AI has a rightful place on the judicial bench—and what it means for justice.ChatGPT as a Historical Judge
What happens when AI is asked to rule on cases from centuries ago? In a bold experiment, we fed records from the Old Bailey—England’s oldest criminal court—into ChatGPT to see how it would handle a peculiar case from 1695 involving accusations of "vagabonding." The results? Surprisingly consistent yet unsettling when compared to historical outcomes.Ethics, Privacy, and the Bench
Should judges disclose when they use AI tools like ChatGPT? Does AI undermine or enhance the credibility of legal decisions? We explore the legal and ethical implications in both the U.S. and U.K., where opinions differ dramatically.The Lighter Side of Law
From the quirks of 17th-century criminal justice to modern musings on technology, this episode mixes humor and history to keep things engaging. After all, as host Darol Tuttle remarks, "Law can be boring. Let’s fix that."
Meet the Team: A Little Twist
What’s a podcast without some creative flair? You’ll meet Rachel, Drew, and Darol—our trio of legal and tech enthusiasts. But here’s the catch: they’re all voiced by Darol, thanks to cutting-edge AI tools. Yes, even the personas are AI-enhanced, showcasing the very technology we’re discussing.
Why? Because podcasts can be boring, and we believe in breaking conventions.
The Curious Case of Peter Lawman and Francis Buckley
Picture this scene. A man lies under straw. Two women sit on him. They sit in a barn in Hampstead. The year is 1696. The man has a pistol. He owns a mare worth 200 pounds. The authorities find him there. They name him Francis Buckley.
Someone heard him claim to be Egyptian. Someone heard him declare himself King of the Egyptians. The crime exists in the claim alone. The act of speaking makes the felony. Henry VIII created this trap in 1530.
The evidence consists of words. The words floated through air. The words landed in ears. The ears belonged to witnesses. The witnesses told the court. The court believed the witnesses. The defendant denied the words. His denial meant nothing.
Old Bailey: A Theater of Justice
Old Bailey, London’s central criminal court, was the stage for many trials that reveal the stark inequities of the era. The court handled cases ranging from petty theft to capital crimes, often with a swiftness that left little room for nuanced justice. Adjacent to Newgate Prison, Old Bailey was notorious for its expedited process: trials could lead to executions within days. The court’s records, which date back to the early 17th century, remain a vital resource for understanding the period’s legal system.
The trial of Lawman and Buckley unfolded within this dramatic setting. Both men were accused of "vagabonding" and claiming to be Egyptians—a charge that seems absurd to modern sensibilities but was treated with deadly seriousness at the time. The evidence against them included witness testimony that they had referred to themselves as Egyptians, coupled with circumstances like being found in possession of weapons or traveling in suspicious company.
The Egyptians Act: A Legal Tool of Xenophobia
The Egyptians Act of 1530 was enacted under King Henry VIII, reflecting the deeply ingrained fears and prejudices of the time. Despite its name, the act did not target Egyptians but rather the Romani people, who were erroneously believed to originate from Egypt. This misunderstanding gave rise to the derogatory term "Gypsy," a label that carried with it severe legal and social consequences.
The act made it a crime for Romani people to enter or remain in England and condemned those who were perceived as vagrants or "wandering Egyptians." Its language was harsh, classifying those targeted as criminals for their mere existence or movement within the country. Violators faced severe penalties, including transportation to the colonies or execution, underscoring the brutal xenophobia embedded in the law.
By the time of Lawman and Buckley's trial in 1696, the act had evolved, but its underlying premise remained unchanged. It continued to be used as a tool to persecute marginalized groups and maintain rigid social hierarchies.
The Trial and its Outcome
The Old Bailey record captures the surreal and tragic details of the trial. Francis Buckley, described as hiding in a barn with a pistol and alleged to have declared himself an “Egyptian king,” faced a damning narrative. Peter Lawman, likewise accused of claiming to be an Egyptian, denied the charge, asserting that he was German. Despite the flimsy evidence, the court found both men guilty under the Egyptians Act.
Their punishment was swift and brutal. Both men were sentenced to death and executed within a week—a common practice in an era when justice was meted out with little regard for proportionality or due process.
The Bloody Code and the Era’s Legal Climate
The trial of Lawman and Buckley occurred during a period often referred to as the Bloody Code, a term used to describe England’s draconian legal system, which prescribed the death penalty for over 200 offenses. From stealing goods worth a few shillings to acts of vagrancy, many minor crimes were punishable by hanging. This harshness was intended to deter crime but often led to public outrage and sympathy for the condemned.
The Egyptians Act exemplifies how law was wielded as a tool of control and exclusion. Its enforcement relied on deep societal fears of outsiders and "undesirables," channeling xenophobia into state-sanctioned persecution. The Romani people, along with anyone who could be vaguely associated with them, bore the brunt of this cruelty.
The AI Judge
Fast forward to 2024, and their case found new life in an unexpected venue. Following discussions about a British judge's use of ChatGPT as a "jolly useful tool," researchers began feeding historical cases into artificial intelligence systems to study how AI might approach judicial decision-making. The results proved fascinating.
When presented with the facts of Buckley and Lawman's case, ChatGPT rendered consistent verdicts across multiple trials: seven years of colonial labor for Buckley, considering the weapon and circumstances of his arrest, and acquittal for Lawman, whose case rested solely on verbal testimony. The AI's reasoning reflected a nuanced understanding of proportional justice that seemed centuries ahead of its time.
Analysis: The Machine's Mercy
The contrast between historical reality and artificial judgment raises profound questions about the nature of justice itself. The human court, operating within the prejudices and fears of its time, showed no hesitation in condemning both men to death. The artificial intelligence, trained on centuries of human knowledge and ethical evolution, consistently sought a more measured response.
This disparity becomes even more intriguing when we consider the historical context. The Egyptians Act, as ChatGPT correctly identified, emerged from a fundamental misunderstanding about Romani origins. The law transformed a geographical error into a tool of state control, reaching far beyond its intended scope to ensnare even those like Lawman and Buckley, whose names suggest neither Egyptian nor Romani heritage.
The Modern Echo
Today's debates about AI in judicial systems often focus on the technology's potential for error or bias. Yet the case of Buckley and Lawman suggests another perspective: might artificial intelligence, with its vast knowledge and consistent application of principles, serve as a check against human prejudice and passion?
The answer isn't simple. While ChatGPT's measured response to the Old Bailey case shows promising potential for balanced judgment, it also raises questions about the role of human experience and wisdom in judicial decisions. The AI's consistency might be admirable, but does it capture the full complexity of human justice?
Looking Forward
As we grapple with these questions, the story of Buckley and Lawman reminds us that justice systems, whether human or artificial, reflect the values and understanding of their time. The harsh reality of 17th-century justice stands as a sobering reminder of how far we've come—and perhaps as a warning about the importance of continuing to evolve.
The walls of Old Bailey still stand, now housing a modern court system that would be unrecognizable to Buckley and Lawman. Yet their story, bridging centuries through digital analysis, suggests that the fundamental questions of justice—of mercy, proportion, and fairness—remain as relevant as ever.
In the end, perhaps the most valuable lesson from this historical-meets-digital experiment isn't about the superiority of human or artificial judgment, but about the potential for each to inform and improve the other. As we move forward into an era where AI increasingly assists in legal decisions, the echo of Buckley and Lawman's case reminds us that justice, in any form, must be tempered with wisdom, mercy, and an understanding of our own capacity for error.
For more info, visit the Ol’ Bailey site:
Case of Peter Lawman
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 9.0) August 1695. Trial of Peter Lawman (t16950828-53). Available at: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t16950828-53?text=Lawman (Accessed: 16th January 2025).
Case of Francis Buckley
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 9.0) August 1695. Trial of Francis Buckley (t16950828-54). Available at: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t16950828-54?text=Buckley (Accessed: 16th January 2025).
Record of Execution
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 9.0) February 1696. Punishment summary (s16960227-1). Available at: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/s16960227-1?text=Buckley (Accessed: 16th January 2025).
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/about/punishment#death
🎧 Listen Now: [Link to episode]
💬 Have thoughts on AI and the law? Share your comments below or join the discussion in our community forum.
✨ Stay tuned for future episodes as we unravel the complexities of legal tech, tackle your questions, and maybe even revisit some Old Bailey rulings.
Subscribe for more insights, debates, and humor. Let’s reimagine the future of law—together.
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 9.0) August 1695. Trial of Peter Lawman (t16950828-53). Available at: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t16950828-53?text=Lawman (Accessed: 16th January 2025).
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 9.0) August 1695. Trial of Francis Buckley (t16950828-54). Available at: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/t16950828-54?text=Buckley (Accessed: 16th January 2025).
Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 9.0) February 1696. Punishment summary (s16960227-1). Available at: https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/record/s16960227-1?text=Buckley (Accessed: 16th January 2025).
https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/about/punishment#death
Share this post