7 ms·

Absolute precision? Have you read any law lately? Legal texts are (to me) surprisingly imprecise. One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like

by pintxo 4y ago

Absolute precision? Have you read any law lately? Legal texts are (to me) surprisingly imprecise. One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. I mean, comma/and/or separated lists in full text? Not even parenthesis? That’s not precision.

lolinder 4y ago
I'm not so much concerned about precision of language (although that does matter in some contexts) as I am in precision of facts and precedence.
- lbriner 4y ago
  This shows how little experience you have of the legal system. Everyone who doesn't know expects the law to be precise, everyone who works in it knows how imprecise it is and sometimes that is deliberate because of all the variables involved that might mitigate or aggrevate the charge, assuming there even is a charge. The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance might be the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, an email, an assumption, an ommission etc.
  - patentatt 4y ago
    Sure, but citing a non-existent case would be clearly wrong. That was the hypothetical the post above gave.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    > The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance might be the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, an email, an assumption, an ommission etc. This seems like evidence that I'm right, not that I'm wrong. The tiniest facts matter, and an AI that is prone to making up facts wholesale would totally screw up a case.
hwillis 4y ago
> One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. 1. Laws are written or at least voted on by representatives, and they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand. Also, they're pretty regularly swapped out and often totally bonkers. Especially at the state level. 2. Things change. Look at how the right of search and seizure is applied to digital data and metadata. 3. Most importantly, the imprecision is intentional. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" has no definition because it is up to the person rendering judgement. The courts decide the bounds of the law, and within those bounds people decide how to apply them.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand. Oh you sweet summer child.
- whamlastxmas 4y ago
  > they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand They don’t even read the things they vote on. They’re huge and it’d be a full time job.
  - justincredible 4y ago
    [dead]
- Nifty3929 4y ago
  A recent US president said about a large bill "we have to pass it just to see what's in it."
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    I'm unaware of a President saying that. Sounds more like the Nancy Pelosi (then House Minority Leader, subsequently Speaker of the House), talking about Obamacare: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the...
ravenstine 4y ago
Even most software isn't intended to be absolutely precise, but rather to be precise enough for a given task.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rebuilder 4y ago
Laws are meant to be interpreted.
rhino369 4y ago
>One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. Because you have to apply the law to fact and facts lack mathematical precision. "No vehicles in the park" would require someone to categorize everything in the world into vehicle or !vehicle. Does a wheel chair count? It's easier to lay out the principle and let judges determine edge cases as they play out.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Even you example is more precise that most laws. For example Indiana recently changed their Turn signal law from "Must put in on 300 feet before a lane change" to "Must signal in a reasonable time" WTF is a reasonable time... well what ever time the cop, judge, or prosecutors says it is
  - mountainb 4y ago
    Reasonable time is determined by case law, and when it's a judge deciding, it's the judge's estimation of what a reasonable juror in that jurisdiction would think about the case. It's not as woozy as it seems, and is usually called an objective standard in the legal jargon. It's something that could conceivably be determined by a computer looking at all the factors that a judge would look at, and/or the relevant jury instructions that might frame the issue for a jury.
  - NikolaNovak 4y ago
    Right. The programmer in me fumes at that imprecision. The human in me says "thank God". Because there a myriad valid times you cannot turn on signal 300ft before lane change, but you should always do it in reasonable time :) If I turn on a new street and there's a car parked 200ft down the lane or if a kid jumps on the road or if I become aware of an obstacle or a car cuts me off or I want to give somebody room at a merge etc etc... I may not be able to do it in 300ft but I should still try to do it in reasonable time. There's no "winning". Overly precise is inhumane in some scenarios, Overly vague is inhumane in others.
    - 4y ago
noobermin 4y ago
Syntax does not yield precision. While there is a lot of blur and fluff in law (an understatement), I don't think syntax would yield more precision.
- wewtyflakes 4y ago
  I don't believe that is correct, even lawyers think so: https://www.wordrake.com/blog/3-must-know-comma-rules-for-lawyers https://www.wordrake.com/blog/3-must-know-comma-rules-for-la.... https://thewritelife.com/is-the-oxford-comma-necessary/#The_Oxford_comma_debate_and_a_10_million_comma https://thewritelife.com/is-the-oxford-comma-necessary/#The_...
geph2021 4y ago
those lists also include something like ".. but not limited to ..." Many legal documents are purposely not pinning themselves down on specifics, because they don't want an agreement circumvented on technicalities, when it should be pretty clear to reasonable people what is intended in an agreement.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  That's not the issue. The issue is that the laws are grammatically ambiguous in contradictory ways.
dang 4y ago
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34532371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34532371.

by pintxo 4y ago

lolinder 4y ago

I'm not so much concerned about precision of language (although that does matter in some contexts) as I am in precision of facts and precedence.

lbriner 4y ago
This shows how little experience you have of the legal system. Everyone who doesn't know expects the law to be precise, everyone who works in it knows how imprecise it is and sometimes that is deliberate because of all the variables involved that might mitigate or aggrevate the charge, assuming there even is a charge. The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance might be the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, an email, an assumption, an ommission etc.
- patentatt 4y ago
  Sure, but citing a non-existent case would be clearly wrong. That was the hypothetical the post above gave.
- lolinder 4y ago
  > The difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance might be the smallest proveable piece of evidence. A word, an email, an assumption, an ommission etc. This seems like evidence that I'm right, not that I'm wrong. The tiniest facts matter, and an AI that is prone to making up facts wholesale would totally screw up a case.

hwillis 4y ago

> One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. 1. Laws are written or at least voted on by representatives, and they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand. Also, they're pretty regularly swapped out and often totally bonkers. Especially at the state level. 2. Things change. Look at how the right of search and seizure is applied to digital data and metadata. 3. Most importantly, the imprecision is intentional. "Beyond all reasonable doubt" has no definition because it is up to the person rendering judgement. The courts decide the bounds of the law, and within those bounds people decide how to apply them.

Dalewyn 4y ago
>they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand. Oh you sweet summer child.
whamlastxmas 4y ago
> they don't vote for things that they don't think they understand They don’t even read the things they vote on. They’re huge and it’d be a full time job.
- justincredible 4y ago
  [dead]
Nifty3929 4y ago
A recent US president said about a large bill "we have to pass it just to see what's in it."
- gnicholas 4y ago
  I'm unaware of a President saying that. Sounds more like the Nancy Pelosi (then House Minority Leader, subsequently Speaker of the House), talking about Obamacare: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the-bill-to-see-what-is-in-it/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/pelosi-healthcare-pass-the...

ravenstine 4y ago

Even most software isn't intended to be absolutely precise, but rather to be precise enough for a given task.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rebuilder 4y ago

Laws are meant to be interpreted.

rhino369 4y ago

>One wonders why we have not developed something explicit like mathematical notations for legal stuff. Because you have to apply the law to fact and facts lack mathematical precision. "No vehicles in the park" would require someone to categorize everything in the world into vehicle or !vehicle. Does a wheel chair count? It's easier to lay out the principle and let judges determine edge cases as they play out.

phpisthebest 4y ago
Even you example is more precise that most laws. For example Indiana recently changed their Turn signal law from "Must put in on 300 feet before a lane change" to "Must signal in a reasonable time" WTF is a reasonable time... well what ever time the cop, judge, or prosecutors says it is
- mountainb 4y ago
  Reasonable time is determined by case law, and when it's a judge deciding, it's the judge's estimation of what a reasonable juror in that jurisdiction would think about the case. It's not as woozy as it seems, and is usually called an objective standard in the legal jargon. It's something that could conceivably be determined by a computer looking at all the factors that a judge would look at, and/or the relevant jury instructions that might frame the issue for a jury.
- NikolaNovak 4y ago
  Right. The programmer in me fumes at that imprecision. The human in me says "thank God". Because there a myriad valid times you cannot turn on signal 300ft before lane change, but you should always do it in reasonable time :) If I turn on a new street and there's a car parked 200ft down the lane or if a kid jumps on the road or if I become aware of an obstacle or a car cuts me off or I want to give somebody room at a merge etc etc... I may not be able to do it in 300ft but I should still try to do it in reasonable time. There's no "winning". Overly precise is inhumane in some scenarios, Overly vague is inhumane in others.
  - 4y ago

noobermin 4y ago

Syntax does not yield precision. While there is a lot of blur and fluff in law (an understatement), I don't think syntax would yield more precision.

wewtyflakes 4y ago
I don't believe that is correct, even lawyers think so: https://www.wordrake.com/blog/3-must-know-comma-rules-for-lawyers https://www.wordrake.com/blog/3-must-know-comma-rules-for-la.... https://thewritelife.com/is-the-oxford-comma-necessary/#The_Oxford_comma_debate_and_a_10_million_comma https://thewritelife.com/is-the-oxford-comma-necessary/#The_...

geph2021 4y ago

those lists also include something like ".. but not limited to ..." Many legal documents are purposely not pinning themselves down on specifics, because they don't want an agreement circumvented on technicalities, when it should be pretty clear to reasonable people what is intended in an agreement.

hgsgm 4y ago
That's not the issue. The issue is that the laws are grammatically ambiguous in contradictory ways.

dang 4y ago

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34532371 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34532371.