3 ms·

A big difference between programming and law is that the programmers ultimate incentive is independent of the processors incentive. In law and politics there ar

A big difference between programming and law is that the programmers ultimate incentive is independent of the processors incentive. In law and politics there are multiple agents each with their own incentives, so it is extremely important to uniformize the application of the law (in order to be equal before the law). That nearly all systems do provide leeway for the judge (anglosaxon common law emphasizes this and civil law doesnt, so it's more arguing appearances) is not because it is a feature, but because the law is not that exactly specified. One could imagine each precedent by a judge to be accompanied by a democratic consultation, since in a democracy the people are supposed to govern themselves. While this could allow rampant democratic discrimination (both on factors which are recognized discriminative properties: skin tone, religion, ...; but also on factors not yet recognized as discriminative properties), it would also provide a means for proving our voting behaviour to be discriminative in some sense. In this way unintentional discrimination can be highlighted and corrected. For example a constant back and forth switching on some rule such that the black person goes to prison while the white person walks free would constantly choke the system for democratic consultations until the populace collectively decides to let the black person drink from the same fountain as the white person (or whatever). The system should be set up such that whenever rules are applied unequally it slightly chokes the system with another democratic consultation, until humans end up with equality before the law.

TFortunato 8y ago
On reading, this sounds a lot to me like "trial by a jury of one's peers", only the response to the system being (choked for democratic consultations / having massive court backups and shortage of jurors) has unfortunately so far been mostly public apathy, and people being pushed into accepting plea deals / waiving their rights for a jury trial in many cases. EDIT: I dont say this to be snarky. On the contrary, the idea of "law's being applied equally" being enforced by citizens exercising their powers democratically, vs. the whims of one judge, is really appealing, and explains a lot of why we supposedly have things like jury trials being a right for all. It's just unfortunate that the reality is, we are trying to do this, but if you look at folks who are actually trying to highlight things like discrimination in the system or "hey, maybe we arent applying these laws equally"...well the response they get for doing that isn't always what one would hope for from an enlightened body of citizens.
- DoctorOetker 8y ago
  the current choking of the courts (with most proceedings and exact reasonings out of view of the public) has zero effect on the bigotedness of the populace, so the populace does not change attitudes. Observe how slowly for example racism dissipates. I posit that this would dissipate much faster if a direct democracy was being chocked with back and forth punishing and nonpunishing identical counts, because then it would become full frontal what we are doing. Many of the most bigoted divisive fractions of society would simply feel how they can no longer adress more important matters as long as they have to spend time toggling their votes for settings back and forth on the basis of the in- or out-groupness of some defendant... So the bigots would become apathic to keeping up toggling those specific settings to enforce their bigotry, and get on with their lives. Currently it is the status quo that is choking the news, which is not what I propose... I don't read snark in your comment btw... I value your contribution It's like alphabetization, typically after introduction of one person one vote, people become alphabetic, because by the point the populace has made it clear elitism on this facet (voting) is over, the status quo has every incentive to at least educate the populace in reading and writing... Similarily, I expect moves toward direct democracy (by popular force) to change the behaviour of the elites and the status quo such that "the brutes who will now unavoidably rule us, should at least enjoy a higher level of education with regards to law and so on", and asking questions about law, finding answers, navigating the law, ... will become standard course curricula for the bulk of the populace in high school...

TFortunato 8y ago

On reading, this sounds a lot to me like "trial by a jury of one's peers", only the response to the system being (choked for democratic consultations / having massive court backups and shortage of jurors) has unfortunately so far been mostly public apathy, and people being pushed into accepting plea deals / waiving their rights for a jury trial in many cases. EDIT: I dont say this to be snarky. On the contrary, the idea of "law's being applied equally" being enforced by citizens exercising their powers democratically, vs. the whims of one judge, is really appealing, and explains a lot of why we supposedly have things like jury trials being a right for all. It's just unfortunate that the reality is, we are trying to do this, but if you look at folks who are actually trying to highlight things like discrimination in the system or "hey, maybe we arent applying these laws equally"...well the response they get for doing that isn't always what one would hope for from an enlightened body of citizens.

DoctorOetker 8y ago
the current choking of the courts (with most proceedings and exact reasonings out of view of the public) has zero effect on the bigotedness of the populace, so the populace does not change attitudes. Observe how slowly for example racism dissipates. I posit that this would dissipate much faster if a direct democracy was being chocked with back and forth punishing and nonpunishing identical counts, because then it would become full frontal what we are doing. Many of the most bigoted divisive fractions of society would simply feel how they can no longer adress more important matters as long as they have to spend time toggling their votes for settings back and forth on the basis of the in- or out-groupness of some defendant... So the bigots would become apathic to keeping up toggling those specific settings to enforce their bigotry, and get on with their lives. Currently it is the status quo that is choking the news, which is not what I propose... I don't read snark in your comment btw... I value your contribution It's like alphabetization, typically after introduction of one person one vote, people become alphabetic, because by the point the populace has made it clear elitism on this facet (voting) is over, the status quo has every incentive to at least educate the populace in reading and writing... Similarily, I expect moves toward direct democracy (by popular force) to change the behaviour of the elites and the status quo such that "the brutes who will now unavoidably rule us, should at least enjoy a higher level of education with regards to law and so on", and asking questions about law, finding answers, navigating the law, ... will become standard course curricula for the bulk of the populace in high school...