4 ms·

the transition towards mechanical would of course prompt an enormous amount of decisions to be settled democratically (since we have been doing them ad hoc all

the transition towards mechanical would of course prompt an enormous amount of decisions to be settled democratically (since we have been doing them ad hoc all the time), but the democratic decision is a decision by humans, and all the following similar cases would mechanically follow the same ruling, until either the population changes its mind (through the democratic process) or the population realizes it misformalized a law by an unforeseen case which again prompts a democratic consultation. So it would still be decisions by humans, the resolution of the law would increase and capture more detail messy real world situations of our daily lives. The only horror is that it would force us to either treat everyone as equals before the law, or force us to democratically change the law back and forth when we choose to be inconsistent, forcing us to realize we are discriminating on some (un)identified factor.

Nursie 8y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law, nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. I would use my democratic mandate to vote against such a thing.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  >but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law Neither can the current system, so any analysis would have to be comparative. I do believe we can approach such a state much quicker and more accurately through formalization. >nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. Was the formalization transistion from unwritten laws to written laws a good thing in your view? What makes quotability from a written corpus of law not horrible, but further formalization horrible? With mechanical application I only refer to the end result taken after the verifier (judging algorithm, i.e. MetaMath or other) as a result of either a passing proof of guilt provided by prosecutor, or passing of a proof of innocence provided by defense. There is no imperative algorithm that maps cases to sentences, thats not how the law can work due to combinatorial explosion. The law is like philosophy or mathematics. The society could unconditionally reward people for detecting inconsistencies in the law before we run into them during a trial after a tragedy thus potentially preventing it (i.e. finding a proof that the law simultaneously guarantees a right for a certain deed, yet also forbids it) btw I enjoy this discussion, so if you can come up with more criticisms or examples please do!
  - Nursie 8y ago
    > What makes quotability from a written corpus of law not horrible, but further formalization horrible? Inflexibility. We humans are squishy and imprecise. Which is why the law is unlike mathematics, and I think efforts to make it so and to remove humans from its application are fundamentally misguided. > The society could unconditionally reward people for detecting inconsistencies in the law before we run into them during a trial after a tragedy thus potentially preventing it (i.e. finding a proof that the law simultaneously guarantees a right for a certain deed, yet also forbids it) My thoughts here go more to mitigating circumstances rather than inconsistencies. These are varied to the point of the near infinite, and people can judge these better than algorithms ever could as people can infer, empathise and extrapolate.
    - DoctorOetker 8y ago
      >Inflexibility. I think the iron answer from a judge is less flexible than the possibility to start a democratic petition against a scandalous oversight in the formalized law... I was trying not to bring up mitigating circumstances, since many people don't see a good reason for their existence (I do!), but mitigating circumstances is actually one of the reasons I want formalization! The way society treats the law is highly oversimplified with one-liners like "the law is the law" and "innocent until proven guilty" and "every convicted person is guaranteed a just trial because the prosecution needs to prove their case" But if mitigating circumstances should be brought into consideration, then in theory you can't convict a person with a certain level of punishment until you have also proven that there were no mitigating circumstances, and I am not aware of any binding rule to try and locate or identify the mitigating circumstances. I.e. allow me to call a perpetrator "less guilty" if there are mitigating circumstances; if the prosecution wins a case in the current world without mitigating circumstances ever being brought up by the defense (because they might not be aware), we currently accept the "proof" by the prosecution, even though the punishment may be unjustly harder. I.e. the idea that the burden of proof in the current system lies totally with the prosecution is false, because the prosecution is not trying to diminish the sentence of the defense. By formalizing we would start a discussion on how exactly to formalize mitigating circumstances. I might choose to commit a crime against the (much older) perpetrators of my youth trauma, and while in practice I might get mitigating circumstances, I currently have no such guarantee...

Nursie 8y ago

I'm sorry, but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law, nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. I would use my democratic mandate to vote against such a thing.

DoctorOetker 8y ago
>but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law Neither can the current system, so any analysis would have to be comparative. I do believe we can approach such a state much quicker and more accurately through formalization. >nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. Was the formalization transistion from unwritten laws to written laws a good thing in your view? What makes quotability from a written corpus of law not horrible, but further formalization horrible? With mechanical application I only refer to the end result taken after the verifier (judging algorithm, i.e. MetaMath or other) as a result of either a passing proof of guilt provided by prosecutor, or passing of a proof of innocence provided by defense. There is no imperative algorithm that maps cases to sentences, thats not how the law can work due to combinatorial explosion. The law is like philosophy or mathematics. The society could unconditionally reward people for detecting inconsistencies in the law before we run into them during a trial after a tragedy thus potentially preventing it (i.e. finding a proof that the law simultaneously guarantees a right for a certain deed, yet also forbids it) btw I enjoy this discussion, so if you can come up with more criticisms or examples please do!
- Nursie 8y ago
  > What makes quotability from a written corpus of law not horrible, but further formalization horrible? Inflexibility. We humans are squishy and imprecise. Which is why the law is unlike mathematics, and I think efforts to make it so and to remove humans from its application are fundamentally misguided. > The society could unconditionally reward people for detecting inconsistencies in the law before we run into them during a trial after a tragedy thus potentially preventing it (i.e. finding a proof that the law simultaneously guarantees a right for a certain deed, yet also forbids it) My thoughts here go more to mitigating circumstances rather than inconsistencies. These are varied to the point of the near infinite, and people can judge these better than algorithms ever could as people can infer, empathise and extrapolate.
  - DoctorOetker 8y ago
    >Inflexibility. I think the iron answer from a judge is less flexible than the possibility to start a democratic petition against a scandalous oversight in the formalized law... I was trying not to bring up mitigating circumstances, since many people don't see a good reason for their existence (I do!), but mitigating circumstances is actually one of the reasons I want formalization! The way society treats the law is highly oversimplified with one-liners like "the law is the law" and "innocent until proven guilty" and "every convicted person is guaranteed a just trial because the prosecution needs to prove their case" But if mitigating circumstances should be brought into consideration, then in theory you can't convict a person with a certain level of punishment until you have also proven that there were no mitigating circumstances, and I am not aware of any binding rule to try and locate or identify the mitigating circumstances. I.e. allow me to call a perpetrator "less guilty" if there are mitigating circumstances; if the prosecution wins a case in the current world without mitigating circumstances ever being brought up by the defense (because they might not be aware), we currently accept the "proof" by the prosecution, even though the punishment may be unjustly harder. I.e. the idea that the burden of proof in the current system lies totally with the prosecution is false, because the prosecution is not trying to diminish the sentence of the defense. By formalizing we would start a discussion on how exactly to formalize mitigating circumstances. I might choose to commit a crime against the (much older) perpetrators of my youth trauma, and while in practice I might get mitigating circumstances, I currently have no such guarantee...