5 ms·

Great analysis. Even though we see the warts all of the time, I'm so incredibly impressed by "law," and I didn't get to this point until I was well out of law s

by jrm4 4y ago

Great analysis. Even though we see the warts all of the time, I'm so incredibly impressed by "law," and I didn't get to this point until I was well out of law school. Why I'm impressed is how well the law holds itself together in the face of the massive weight of influences that have every reason in the world to try to corrupt it. It's just all too easy to speculate (or read historically) how easy it is to corrupt this kind of power (religion, violence, fear etc) and how this general notion of "No, we're going to dress up like grownups and do our damndest to figure this out with reasoning" is so great.

throwaway5752 4y ago
Great point. The difficult thing, on this forum, is it is weighted towards younger and very accomplished computer scientists. Sometimes the impulse, when seeing complexity that's hard to understand (medicine, regulation, law), is to be frustrated and dismiss it. Law is amazing and much older than programming, and one of the underrated human inventions. The fact we aren't constantly killing each other over small disputes is amazing when you really consider it.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Many small disputes start as somebody threatening somebody else over like 1¢. Yeah like 1¢, I've gone through that, I've taken somebody to court after escalating the fuck out of a 1¢ cost. Small claims, went alone, the counterparty didn't go to negotiations, I spoke my piece, showed my evidence, corrected their translator because I spoke both languages perfectly, didn't interrupt the judge, suppressed laughter which the transcriber saw and smiled, but that's not harmful...and got everything I asked for, because I asked for exactly what I deserved. Compound interest too, 10% a year, so I can sell that debt to collections or hound that old landlady down myself, which would be a learning experience. Context, she cheated me out of the deposit and now owes me triple plus court costs plus another $45 item she cheated me out of, so like...payback is a bitch. Biggest problem with small claims court, because there is a problem with it...don't sell popcorn. That is a problem, apart from that problem it's great but that is a problem and that means small claims has a problem...they should sell popcorn. And also the amounts are too small, small claims should go up to $50000, courts are the last to adjust for inflation, so it sucks. And the judges get cheated out of wages can't even afford to protect themselves, the jury gets the minimum wage like what the fuck, that's disgusting, they should always get quadruple the minimum wage because they're participating in civil matters which is a legitimate priviledge of a law-abiding citizen. But in court? You can win.
- rgifford 4y ago
  > Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers perspective. And let me tell you, there are warts: The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of technological progress, it's a joke. To be plain, I don't know of any ICs their age able to keep up. They move up or age out. The whole legal rationalist ideal that you can start from the base principles of the constitution and reason up indefinitely is ridiculous. We programmers have all sorts of tooling to navigate code bases larger than we can readily keep in our heads. That tooling regularly fails us. The best programmers I've worked with regularly hit compiler errors. This all happens in the sterile environment of code. Why should I believe that judges, who can't even agree on whether to interpret the constitution in a modern lens or hold to its writers original intentions, are less susceptible to irrationality or bias or plain incompetence with far less tooling? A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. For all you programmers out there, read a handful of legal documents. As far as complex logical reasoning goes, it comes off like a kid building a treehouse compared to code for even simple web apps. The legal profession needs to recognize its limitations and catch up with the times. Here are some ideas: - Rigorous, regular cognitive testing after for all licensed legal professionals older than 45. You have to pass a test to drive in old age, but you can sentence someone to life in prison no problem. - Term limits for everyone, everywhere. - In certain cases, law should embrace statistics. Certain cases aren't suited for proposition-like rule based reasoning. Law needs a larger tool chest that can make argument based not on precedent, but on what exists right now in American society.
  - billyhoffman 4y ago
    I understand what you are saying about declining cognitive abilities, and don’t necessarily disagree. However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature, not a bug. It is to foster an independent justice branch that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term
    - 4y ago
giantg2 4y ago
My experience is that the system is rife with incompetence and convenient inconsistencies.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mdanger007 4y ago
  Justice is great for those who can afford it!
humanistbot 4y ago
You didn't have to read (new) legal realism or critical legal studies in law school?
rland 4y ago
The counter-point would be the criminal legal system, which has spectacularly failed to resist the influence of injustice, and not just historically! I suppose if you have only spent time in civil proceedings (depending on the type of proceeding...) you could hold the view that it is mostly free of corruption. On the federal judiciary, I think we really ought to dispense of the idea that political influence is somehow separate from jurisprudence. Recent events ought to have made that clear. I'm a little bothered by how sacred the courts are in public imagination. I think it's actually harmful to consider them so. We deny that the courts are a fallible institution, which at times enables and empowers bad actors, at our peril.
systemvoltage 4y ago
I am always impressed by lawyers. Even bad ones. They all seem to have this unwavering intellectualism that governs how they speak, write, and engage in their profession. For instance, I find Supreme Court opinions interesting to read because they have a tremendous gravitas and intellectual discourse. Compare this with reading memos of the executive branch for passing a bill or listening to politicians in congress. Law and the profession of Lawyers is fantastically fine. I don't see this in any other profession, even Doctors.

by jrm4 4y ago

throwaway5752 4y ago

Great point. The difficult thing, on this forum, is it is weighted towards younger and very accomplished computer scientists. Sometimes the impulse, when seeing complexity that's hard to understand (medicine, regulation, law), is to be frustrated and dismiss it. Law is amazing and much older than programming, and one of the underrated human inventions. The fact we aren't constantly killing each other over small disputes is amazing when you really consider it.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
Many small disputes start as somebody threatening somebody else over like 1¢. Yeah like 1¢, I've gone through that, I've taken somebody to court after escalating the fuck out of a 1¢ cost. Small claims, went alone, the counterparty didn't go to negotiations, I spoke my piece, showed my evidence, corrected their translator because I spoke both languages perfectly, didn't interrupt the judge, suppressed laughter which the transcriber saw and smiled, but that's not harmful...and got everything I asked for, because I asked for exactly what I deserved. Compound interest too, 10% a year, so I can sell that debt to collections or hound that old landlady down myself, which would be a learning experience. Context, she cheated me out of the deposit and now owes me triple plus court costs plus another $45 item she cheated me out of, so like...payback is a bitch. Biggest problem with small claims court, because there is a problem with it...don't sell popcorn. That is a problem, apart from that problem it's great but that is a problem and that means small claims has a problem...they should sell popcorn. And also the amounts are too small, small claims should go up to $50000, courts are the last to adjust for inflation, so it sucks. And the judges get cheated out of wages can't even afford to protect themselves, the jury gets the minimum wage like what the fuck, that's disgusting, they should always get quadruple the minimum wage because they're participating in civil matters which is a legitimate priviledge of a law-abiding citizen. But in court? You can win.
rgifford 4y ago
> Law is amazing and much older than programming... And boy does it show. Recent events have me examining The Supreme Court and American law from a programmers perspective. And let me tell you, there are warts: The Supreme Court is comprised of lifelong appointees, mostly in the dwindling twilight of their cognitive ability. This made sense when we didn't understand cognitive decline. Now with the rapid pace of technological progress, it's a joke. To be plain, I don't know of any ICs their age able to keep up. They move up or age out. The whole legal rationalist ideal that you can start from the base principles of the constitution and reason up indefinitely is ridiculous. We programmers have all sorts of tooling to navigate code bases larger than we can readily keep in our heads. That tooling regularly fails us. The best programmers I've worked with regularly hit compiler errors. This all happens in the sterile environment of code. Why should I believe that judges, who can't even agree on whether to interpret the constitution in a modern lens or hold to its writers original intentions, are less susceptible to irrationality or bias or plain incompetence with far less tooling? A lot of modern psychology suggests they can't. For all you programmers out there, read a handful of legal documents. As far as complex logical reasoning goes, it comes off like a kid building a treehouse compared to code for even simple web apps. The legal profession needs to recognize its limitations and catch up with the times. Here are some ideas: - Rigorous, regular cognitive testing after for all licensed legal professionals older than 45. You have to pass a test to drive in old age, but you can sentence someone to life in prison no problem. - Term limits for everyone, everywhere. - In certain cases, law should embrace statistics. Certain cases aren't suited for proposition-like rule based reasoning. Law needs a larger tool chest that can make argument based not on precedent, but on what exists right now in American society.
- billyhoffman 4y ago
  I understand what you are saying about declining cognitive abilities, and don’t necessarily disagree. However the lifetime appointment of US Supreme Court justices is a purposeful designed feature, not a bug. It is to foster an independent justice branch that is not beholden to the president that appointed them, because the justice can simply “outlast” the presidents term
  - 4y ago

giantg2 4y ago

My experience is that the system is rife with incompetence and convenient inconsistencies.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mdanger007 4y ago
Justice is great for those who can afford it!

humanistbot 4y ago

You didn't have to read (new) legal realism or critical legal studies in law school?

rland 4y ago

The counter-point would be the criminal legal system, which has spectacularly failed to resist the influence of injustice, and not just historically! I suppose if you have only spent time in civil proceedings (depending on the type of proceeding...) you could hold the view that it is mostly free of corruption. On the federal judiciary, I think we really ought to dispense of the idea that political influence is somehow separate from jurisprudence. Recent events ought to have made that clear. I'm a little bothered by how sacred the courts are in public imagination. I think it's actually harmful to consider them so. We deny that the courts are a fallible institution, which at times enables and empowers bad actors, at our peril.

systemvoltage 4y ago

I am always impressed by lawyers. Even bad ones. They all seem to have this unwavering intellectualism that governs how they speak, write, and engage in their profession. For instance, I find Supreme Court opinions interesting to read because they have a tremendous gravitas and intellectual discourse. Compare this with reading memos of the executive branch for passing a bill or listening to politicians in congress. Law and the profession of Lawyers is fantastically fine. I don't see this in any other profession, even Doctors.