Robot Competing with Robots
On March 10, 1988, someone bit off half the ear of Officer David J. Storton. No one doubts who
did it: either Shawn Blick, a twenty-one-year-old man living in Palo Alto, California, or
Jonathan Blick, his identical twin brother. Both were scuffling with the officer, and one of
them bit off part of his ear. Both were charged with mayhem, attempted burglary, assaulting a
police officer, and aggravated mayhem. The aggravated mayhem charge, for the ear biting,
carries a life sentence. Officer Storton testified that one of the twins had short hair and the
other long, and it was the long-haired man who bit him. Unfortunately, by the time the men
surrendered three days later they sported identical crew cuts and weren't talking. Their
lawyers argued that neither one could be given the severe sentence for aggravated mayhem.
For each brother there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he did it, because it could have
been the other. The argument is compelling because our sense of justice picks out the
individual who did a deed, not the characteristics of that individual.
Next
On March 10, 1988, someone bit off half the ear of Officer David J. Storton. No one doubts who
did it: either Shawn Blick, a twenty-one-year-old man living in Palo Alto, California, or
Jonathan Blick, his identical twin brother. Both were scuffling with the officer, and one of
them bit off part of his ear. Both were charged with mayhem, attempted burglary, assaulting a
police officer, and aggravated mayhem. The aggravated mayhem charge, for the ear biting,
carries a life sentence. Officer Storton testified that one of the twins had short hair and the
other long, and it was the long-haired man who bit him. Unfortunately, by the time the men
surrendered three days later they sported identical crew cuts and weren't talking. Their
lawyers argued that neither one could be given the severe sentence for aggravated mayhem.
For each brother there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he did it, because it could have
been the other. The argument is compelling because our sense of justice picks out the
individual who did a deed, not the characteristics of that individual.
Next
 | |  | |  | |  |