3 ms·

> Murder has, like tons of edge cases, as reviewing almost any jurisdiction’s criminal homicide laws will reveal. In other words, you're saying that even what

by pdonis 4y ago

> Murder has, like tons of edge cases, as reviewing almost any jurisdiction’s criminal homicide laws will reveal. In other words, you're saying that even what should be fairly simple laws have been overcomplicated by our byzantine legal system, so that prosecutorial discretion can be abused even for them. I don't disagree, but I don't see how it contradicts my basic point.

lazide 4y ago
No, their point is that reality is nuanced and complicated and in an attempt to be just and non capricious the legal system builds up complexity. But it still requires human judgement.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> In other words, you're saying that even what should be fairly simple laws have been overcomplicated by our byzantine legal system No, I’m saying that operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws is inherently messy, and that the examples you cited of it's potential simplicity, in fact, are examples that demonstrate the very complexity you held them up as lacking.
- pdonis 4y ago
  > operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws is inherently messy Assuming that I agree with this (at least for the sake of argument), it still misses my point. My point is that most laws--and the CFAA is an example--are not "operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws". As I have pointed out several times now at various points in this overall discussion thread, we already have laws against fraud. Why should fraud that is committed with a computer be any different from fraud commmitted by other means? Having a separate law that makes committing fraud with a computer different from committing fraud some other way is not operationalizing a fairly simple moral principle against fraud. It's making the legal system more byzantine and complex for no good reason. That is what I am arguing against.

by pdonis 4y ago

lazide 4y ago

No, their point is that reality is nuanced and complicated and in an attempt to be just and non capricious the legal system builds up complexity. But it still requires human judgement.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> In other words, you're saying that even what should be fairly simple laws have been overcomplicated by our byzantine legal system No, I’m saying that operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws is inherently messy, and that the examples you cited of it's potential simplicity, in fact, are examples that demonstrate the very complexity you held them up as lacking.

pdonis 4y ago
> operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws is inherently messy Assuming that I agree with this (at least for the sake of argument), it still misses my point. My point is that most laws--and the CFAA is an example--are not "operationalizing fairly simple moral principles into forms suitable for enforcement as laws". As I have pointed out several times now at various points in this overall discussion thread, we already have laws against fraud. Why should fraud that is committed with a computer be any different from fraud commmitted by other means? Having a separate law that makes committing fraud with a computer different from committing fraud some other way is not operationalizing a fairly simple moral principle against fraud. It's making the legal system more byzantine and complex for no good reason. That is what I am arguing against.