4 ms·
When I read this kind of thing, I ask myself: "Is this similar to the way that the moment I start discussing something remotely technical with my wife, she look
by xrd 6y ago
When I read this kind of thing, I ask myself: "Is this similar to the way that the moment I start discussing something remotely technical with my wife, she looks like she gives up within about ten seconds?" I just can't finish an article like this without wanting to throw up in my mouth.
I read an article like this and the US legal system seems so completely arbitrary and full of holes to be exploited by whomever can put ideological judges (with essentially lifetime appointments) in place first.
Comparing this to technical systems, both laws and old legacy systems have "tech debt" that has accrued over long periods of time. But, with a technical system, you can remove pieces when they hinder the working of the system.
With legal systems, it seems like everything is based on precedent. Which mean decisions, good or bad, force future decisions in the same direction.
Is this a fundamental misunderstanding of the way things actually work? If not, is there any hope of fixing that trait of the US legal system, where our criminal justice system has so many flaws that impact so many people in such awful ways?
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoUnfortunately, I think your understanding is correct.
- throwaway8451 6y agoOff-topic: if your wife gives up after a few seconds of an explanation, you might want to break it down to a level that she actually understands. Identifying the appropriate level might be harder than actually formulating it on this level. Keep in mind that this is not just an end in itself as this problem might occur in other situations, e.g. with colleagues, bosses or a customer not understanding what you are going on about. The reason why this is actually important is that the amount of things we can achieve completely on our own are very limited and that for anything bigger, we need to interact and cooperate with others. The speaker is the one who wants to transmit the message. Therefore it is the speaker's task to make sure the message is clear enough and of an appropriate form (or even interesting enough!) for the receiver.
- imperialdrive 6y agoThe US legal system is built in a way that prevents itself from ever being 'too sure' of something on purpose. It's a safety mechanism to provide some flexibility and protection in edge cases. Technology systems have a very different set of requirements for success.
- xrd 6y agoOk. That's great to hear. But isn't that ambiguity used by whoever has the legal authority to enforce what they want, rather than what's "right?"
- staticautomatic 6y agoIt’s awfully sure about statutory sentencing.
- anon9001 6y agoYou're just not waiting long enough. Give it another 50 years or so and statutory sentencing probably go away. It's a system that moves so slowly that it can take multiple generations to correct wrongs. I think that's considered a feature for long-term stability, but it seems like poor design to me. If you look at a long enough timescale, we are trending in the right direction.
- staticautomatic 6y agoCalifornia’s Determinate Sentencing Law was enacted not long ago, in ‘77. What would you call that? A local minimum? In any event, I can only wait as long as I’m not convicted of a crime which carries a statutory sentence. How long is it fair for those already sentenced to wait from the comfort of their prison cells?
- anon9001 6y agoIt's not fair, but I meant 50 more years. I figure real change takes about 4 generations to happen. If it makes you feel better, you can think of the non-violent imprisoned as grains of sand on the scales of justice. Your persistent outrage helps push for change in the same way.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]