he and his attorney say he would have never have been convicted if his former prosecutor ken andersonked hard to see him held accountable, and last year anderson was sentenced to prison for ten days, resigned from the bench, and was banned from practicing law in texas. it was regarded as an unprecedented outcome, but it was not morton's only victory. he also lobbied successfully for a new law that requires entire files get handed over, not just evidence that the prosecution deems favorable to the defense. it's called the michael morton act. >> before that the prosecutors were the gatekeepers. they got to decide, i may or may not want to turn this over. >> and now? >> now, they must turn over all offense reports which are the investigation of the police officers and the deputies. they have to turn those over, the complete file. it's a different world now. >> reporter: morton has also been the subject of an award-winning documentary. >> there's a lot of evil residing within these walls. >> reporter: and written a book about his life pub lived by cbs subsidiary, simon & schuster. he and

project says there's no epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct, but the man that prosecuted you, ken andersonad a successful career, he was a judge, he was convicted of a misdemeanour and felon for the conduct in your case, of evidence not turned over. he served five days in gaol. do you think that's fair? what kind of message does that send? >> believe it or not in the legal community it's a huge message. if you or i go to gaol, that's one thing. if somebody from a bad neighbourhood with a bad life and a rough situation goes to gaol for six months, a year, you may get the attention, you may not. but, when somebody in the judge's position, who was my prosecutor, someone of his social economic status, his position in the community - all eyes are op him all the time. you send him -- on him all the time. you send him for a few days in gaol, it affect him in ways that may not affect you or me or anyone else. when people ask the question i point to the mug shot. i don't think i have seen a more broken man. it impacted him. >> i know you re-established a great relationship with your son, who you we

the question is -- you know t paper on the discussion reminded me as ken anderson ice point and his sort of cognitive buff. i love the thought exz permit. the law is not fully determin t determinant. and there are unsettled questions, divisions of thourty. inconsistent legal rules. they have to organize high political judgment. many of us would 5:00 september for an ultimate traffic section, you could have an automated system. the question would be at what point do we get into the model doubt of justice robots. how fard would you be willing to 5:00 september automated or al go rhythmic decision-making: >> neil basically asked my question. i'm sorry, i'm woodrow hartdog. you talk about jurjing with a capital j. what about things like arbitration? >> well, just starting off, so we tried to be clear in our second section, which was called other possible worlds at recognizing that, you know, what's so fun about this example is it jury rooms straight to the top. but the reality of how things are going to go and we a hundred percent agree with her. ai in the law where the goal is to develop ap

ken anderson. let me speak on behalf of those who were not around for any of this in 1985. not because i was too young, but because i'm not sure what i was doing. i just remember, vaguely, coming into this law. this is like this cool area, jamie boyle, a very close friend and it seemed like he was intellectually playful and too cool for anything that i did. you know the sense of gee wizness. this is, in somece sense, a ver strange feel that has a certain sense about staking ownership intellectually in the next camp. >>> rhymyan, you know i'm the biggest fan of this paper. but i believe if we get outside of the conversation with the people who are part of the cyber conversation from before, which notably, everything here is really focused on, i think that the part of the pher that's going to be the most lasting in terms of generating the most basic ideas is your identification of embodiment, emergence and social meeting chlgt i would actually suggest separating out those two conversations. and what grabbed me so much about this paper was precisely your articulation of the fe

but the question, the paper and the discussion reminded me of ken anderson's point yesterday and his cognitive buffer that he puts into not think about fully advanced humanoid robots because there are so many pressing problems right now, and i loved the thought experiment. but i wonder about whether we should think about fully human robots, like just as robots or jrr, and when the supreme court justices into the american model are the right vehicle to examine the question. you think about the course role for itself. it's that the law is not fully determinate and there are unsettled questions, circuit splits, division of authority, and consistent legal rule and after exercise high political judgment, that you and jack have been talking about for the last hour. but that's a very different set of questions than most legal questions. so many legal questions are much more determined. even at the micro level i take many of us would accept regardless of her position on your question, many of us would accept that for like an automated traffic detection system, this was your paper two years a

. >> ken anderson. not because i was too young but i'm not sure what i was, so i just remember sort of vaguely coming to law and this was like this cool area, jamie boil is a very close friend and it seemed like he was just intellectually playful and too cool for anything that i did. david you note the sense of sort of gee whizness. it's the most attractive thing to me coming from fields where the general action is pistols at dawn. so this is in some sense a very strange conversation about the future of this field that has a certain sense about staking ownership intellectually in the next camp. and ryan, i think that you know that i'm the biggest fan of this paper i've been pushing to kind of everybody, but i believe that if we get swrout side of the conversation with the people who are part of the cyber conversation from before which notably everything here is really focused on, i think that the part of the paper that's going to be the most lasting in terms of generating the basic ideas about these new