6 ms·

I think I'd approach the problem from the other end, find a way to write laws such that they are checkable with assertions, properties, and constraints.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago
This would be amazing. If we had this the first line of judges could just be automated. Feed evidence in, computer finds you guilty or innocent, done. Then if you appeal you can seek a human judge in case judgement / exceptions need to be made (so say you technically broke a law but it was actually necessary / a good thing then you have recourse). First appeals could be very quick, less traffic to first human judge, etc. Hell even without automated the justice system just doing as you suggested alone would be amazing. I've often wondered about putting laws in GIT or similar.
- plttn 10y ago
  > Feed evidence in, computer finds you guilty or innocent, done. Would you be willing to trust a program with your sentence? I wouldn't in the slightest.
  - BinaryIdiot 10y ago
    Yes but only with the provisions I added that you didn't include in your quote :) (e.g. quick, efficient appeals process to where I can talk with a human judge). Plus the laws would have to be written in this fashion so it would be far, far less murky than what it is today. So that's a lot of ifs and provisions...so I wouldn't expect this to happen ever.
- peenix 10y ago
  You make me sick
- vertex-four 10y ago
  You realise that humans are very, very good at figuring out what just doesn't count as breaking an extremely strictly defined law, right?
  - im4w1l 10y ago
    This can be solved by proportional punishments. Then just not breaking the law, and just breaking the law gives similar outcomes (nothing vs slap on wrist)
- DigitalJack 10y ago
  I'd be happy if the laws were simply self-consistent, and checkably so. enforcement/judgement I would leave to people. And be self-consistent I mean that it doesn't contradict itself.
- patrickaljord 10y ago
  > putting laws in GIT or similar. Tiny nitpick, it's git, not GIT :)
truncate 10y ago
There is one to one correspondence between types and propositions, so I think it wouldn't do much with theory. I wonder type system expressive enough to encode laws would be decidable (at-least practically at scale of whole constitution) at first place.

BinaryIdiot 10y ago

This would be amazing. If we had this the first line of judges could just be automated. Feed evidence in, computer finds you guilty or innocent, done. Then if you appeal you can seek a human judge in case judgement / exceptions need to be made (so say you technically broke a law but it was actually necessary / a good thing then you have recourse). First appeals could be very quick, less traffic to first human judge, etc. Hell even without automated the justice system just doing as you suggested alone would be amazing. I've often wondered about putting laws in GIT or similar.

plttn 10y ago
> Feed evidence in, computer finds you guilty or innocent, done. Would you be willing to trust a program with your sentence? I wouldn't in the slightest.
- BinaryIdiot 10y ago
  Yes but only with the provisions I added that you didn't include in your quote :) (e.g. quick, efficient appeals process to where I can talk with a human judge). Plus the laws would have to be written in this fashion so it would be far, far less murky than what it is today. So that's a lot of ifs and provisions...so I wouldn't expect this to happen ever.
peenix 10y ago
You make me sick
vertex-four 10y ago
You realise that humans are very, very good at figuring out what just doesn't count as breaking an extremely strictly defined law, right?
- im4w1l 10y ago
  This can be solved by proportional punishments. Then just not breaking the law, and just breaking the law gives similar outcomes (nothing vs slap on wrist)
DigitalJack 10y ago
I'd be happy if the laws were simply self-consistent, and checkably so. enforcement/judgement I would leave to people. And be self-consistent I mean that it doesn't contradict itself.
patrickaljord 10y ago
> putting laws in GIT or similar. Tiny nitpick, it's git, not GIT :)

truncate 10y ago

There is one to one correspondence between types and propositions, so I think it wouldn't do much with theory. I wonder type system expressive enough to encode laws would be decidable (at-least practically at scale of whole constitution) at first place.