3 ms·

They do have ways to handle edge cases: judges. They are imperfect and I'm sure you can find much wrong with the courts, but attempting to codify every edge ca

They do have ways to handle edge cases: judges. They are imperfect and I'm sure you can find much wrong with the courts, but attempting to codify every edge case is not only impossible, but dangerous. The more laws you create, the more likely you can find a way you're breaking one. It's not a perfect system, but a cornerstone of American democracy is that you are judge by people, people like you, not by an algorithm.

nitrogen 11y ago
> ...people, people like you... We've been reminded again and again by recent events how horribly wrong things can go when the is system is applied to people who are not like the judge/jury/officers/etc. There's got to be a better way than relying on inherently biased people, especially for commonly persecuted groups (minority races/orientations/occupations). I think when someone says they want an axiomatic or algorithmic legal system, they're saying people are not like them, and they would rather be judged by an algorithm. Also that they would rather know in advance what behaviors will be judged positively or negatively.
- stinkytaco 11y ago
  I understand this, and if I thought it were possible, I would agree. However... The law is essentially trying to codify a moral code, one that changes with time. We've seen how the law struggles with changes to technology, lifestyle and shifting attitudes. But sometimes the very axioms change (see slavery, suffrage, common law). Because the law cannot keep up with changes, we're stuck with messy human interpretation to smooth over some of those rough edges. Something like Brown v. Board of Education, which seems obvious in retrospect, may not have occurred in an axiomatic system (perhaps Plessy v. Ferguson may not have occurred either, though considering the primary axiom that American law is based on once said that blacks were 3/5 of a human, I find that unlikely). I would argue that we ought to try to introduce algorithms into the enforcement of the law (policing, traffic enforcement, jury selection, public defenders, etc) rather than the interpretation of it. Of course, one could argue mass surveillance is exactly that, so I don't know.

nitrogen 11y ago

> ...people, people like you... We've been reminded again and again by recent events how horribly wrong things can go when the is system is applied to people who are not like the judge/jury/officers/etc. There's got to be a better way than relying on inherently biased people, especially for commonly persecuted groups (minority races/orientations/occupations). I think when someone says they want an axiomatic or algorithmic legal system, they're saying people are not like them, and they would rather be judged by an algorithm. Also that they would rather know in advance what behaviors will be judged positively or negatively.

stinkytaco 11y ago
I understand this, and if I thought it were possible, I would agree. However... The law is essentially trying to codify a moral code, one that changes with time. We've seen how the law struggles with changes to technology, lifestyle and shifting attitudes. But sometimes the very axioms change (see slavery, suffrage, common law). Because the law cannot keep up with changes, we're stuck with messy human interpretation to smooth over some of those rough edges. Something like Brown v. Board of Education, which seems obvious in retrospect, may not have occurred in an axiomatic system (perhaps Plessy v. Ferguson may not have occurred either, though considering the primary axiom that American law is based on once said that blacks were 3/5 of a human, I find that unlikely). I would argue that we ought to try to introduce algorithms into the enforcement of the law (policing, traffic enforcement, jury selection, public defenders, etc) rather than the interpretation of it. Of course, one could argue mass surveillance is exactly that, so I don't know.