3 ms·

Lawyers and judges are not just hardware interpreting and 'running' the 'code' of law. Law needs to be flexible to handle all manner of unsanitized inputs, and

Lawyers and judges are not just hardware interpreting and 'running' the 'code' of law. Law needs to be flexible to handle all manner of unsanitized inputs, and judges need to have leeway to (attempt to) serve justice and the spirit of the law. Laws that are sufficiently written to explicitly close every loop-hole or guard against all malicious 'input', would be monstrosities that no one human could ever truly know. The US tax code strikes me as something that has gone in that direction.

scryder 9y ago
>Law ... monstrocities We already have that, though, and "sufficienty written" is a very dangerous standard. The easiest way to guard against "all" malicious input is write a vague law without clauses that demand mens reas, which means that regardless of whether or not you knowingly broke the law, by violating its provisions, you automatically did. The leeway to "serve justice" also tends to be the leeway to condemn justice or to interpret law in ways it was never designed to account for. The lawcomic, written by a lawyer, has a good section about the kind of overcriminalization you're discussing: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The easiest way to guard against "all" malicious input is write a vague law without clauses that demand mens reas, which means that regardless of whether or not you knowingly broke the law, by violating its provisions, you automatically did. Most criminal laws have a mens rea component (strict liability is rare), but almost none of them have a requirement of knowing that the act was illegal. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is not limited to strict liability offenses.
  - scryder 9y ago
    "The easiest way to avoid loopholes" and "frequency of use in real life" are not equivalent. I'd certainly argue there are plenty of vague, overbroad laws, regardless of the frequency of strict liability's usage. I'd further argue infrequency actually increases the likelihood that otherwise innocent individuals are swept up in such cases: they have less reason to suspect that they've done anything wrong.
emmelaich 9y ago
> ... not just hardware interpreting and 'running' the 'code' of law. We're heading that way in terms of contracts and blockchain. And insofar as "the law" is a contract between the citizens and government, you'll find more and more government regulation being implemented in blockchain in the future.

scryder 9y ago

>Law ... monstrocities We already have that, though, and "sufficienty written" is a very dangerous standard. The easiest way to guard against "all" malicious input is write a vague law without clauses that demand mens reas, which means that regardless of whether or not you knowingly broke the law, by violating its provisions, you automatically did. The leeway to "serve justice" also tends to be the leeway to condemn justice or to interpret law in ways it was never designed to account for. The lawcomic, written by a lawyer, has a good section about the kind of overcriminalization you're discussing: http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031 http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1031

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The easiest way to guard against "all" malicious input is write a vague law without clauses that demand mens reas, which means that regardless of whether or not you knowingly broke the law, by violating its provisions, you automatically did. Most criminal laws have a mens rea component (strict liability is rare), but almost none of them have a requirement of knowing that the act was illegal. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is not limited to strict liability offenses.
- scryder 9y ago
  "The easiest way to avoid loopholes" and "frequency of use in real life" are not equivalent. I'd certainly argue there are plenty of vague, overbroad laws, regardless of the frequency of strict liability's usage. I'd further argue infrequency actually increases the likelihood that otherwise innocent individuals are swept up in such cases: they have less reason to suspect that they've done anything wrong.

emmelaich 9y ago

> ... not just hardware interpreting and 'running' the 'code' of law. We're heading that way in terms of contracts and blockchain. And insofar as "the law" is a contract between the citizens and government, you'll find more and more government regulation being implemented in blockchain in the future.