4 ms·

>Maybe it's just harder to ensure "fair and impartial justice" than you think I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal sys

>Maybe it's just harder to ensure "fair and impartial justice" than you think I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered? The software example you give cuts both ways. Yes, making even a simple Windows application can be very complicated. But how much of that is due to Windows itself? Can your application be replicated with a combination of existing Unix tools? Depends on the application, of course, but there is certainly a lot of cruft floating around the Windows API space. And let's also not forget that (often) one of the main purposes of commercial software is to lock you in to that particular piece of software. Same same with the legal system and lawyers. The jury system was supposed to cut through this sort of thing. Twelve regular folks could upend or ignore every law on the books if they thought the whole case was nonsense on stilts. A lot of work has gone into avoiding jury nullification for this reason.

tablespoon 4y ago
> I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered? I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to really understand what it does" vibes here. > The jury system was supposed to cut through this sort of thing. Twelve regular folks could upend or ignore every law on the books if they thought the whole case was nonsense on stilts. A lot of work has gone into avoiding jury nullification for this reason. Jury nullification is not an unalloyed good. It can (and has) gotten us to "he's innocent because he murdered a black man and the jury doesn't like blacks."
- deltarholamda 4y ago
  >I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to really understand what it does" vibes here Not really. Are you suggesting that it isn't pretty difficult to navigate the legal system? Saying something is wonky and needs to be fixed does not automatically mean "Anarchy Now!" My point was that I think I do understand what the system does, and what it does is (largely) provide lots of work for people in the legal system. You see this when buying a house. You end up writing a bunch of checks to companies and people and it's not clear exactly what actual necessary service they provide, but it's not like you can NOT do it. Their service is necessary because the real estate laws make it necessary. In other industries we know this as regulatory capture. This is just regulatory capture of the regulatory system. >Jury nullification is not an unalloyed good. Nothing is an unalloyed good. To bolster your example, OJ got to walk as well. This is why there is an entire industry built up around just the jury selection process.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    >> I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to really understand what it does" vibes here > Not really. Are you suggesting that it isn't pretty difficult to navigate the legal system? Saying something is wonky and needs to be fixed does not automatically mean "Anarchy Now!" No, I'm suggesting that complexity may often have good reason. Without specific reform proposals, what you're saying registers similarly to "coding in programming languages is hard, so simplify it by coding in natural language!" > You see this when buying a house. You end up writing a bunch of checks to companies and people and it's not clear exactly what actual necessary service they provide, but it's not like you can NOT do it. Their service is necessary because the real estate laws make it necessary. Being ignorant of the value of a service doesn't make that service unnecessary. And honestly, I bet you could "NOT do it" -- if you could pay cash for the property. IIRC, a lot of that is actually required by whoever you get your mortgage from, because they know the value of it.
    - deltarholamda 4y ago
      >Without specific reform proposals I think requiring me to write a policy paper in HN comments is a bit onerous. In any event, I can't much help if my mild criticism is interpreted on your part as something deeply nefarious. >Being ignorant of the value of a service doesn't make that service unnecessary. The fact that a service exists does not make that service necessary. Or do you always buy the protection plan from Office Depot when you purchase a stapler? Anyway, I agree that the mortgage companies find great value in all of their various fees.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> the current legal system…is…over-engineered There are simultaneously arguments in this thread that the American legal system is insufficiently arcane and code-like, for what it’s worth.
freejazz 4y ago
> I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered) Huge Elon Musk rewrite the code from scratch vibes coming from you
dinkumthinkum 4y ago
That’s not why we have a jury system.

tablespoon 4y ago

> I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered? I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to really understand what it does" vibes here. > The jury system was supposed to cut through this sort of thing. Twelve regular folks could upend or ignore every law on the books if they thought the whole case was nonsense on stilts. A lot of work has gone into avoiding jury nullification for this reason. Jury nullification is not an unalloyed good. It can (and has) gotten us to "he's innocent because he murdered a black man and the jury doesn't like blacks."

deltarholamda 4y ago
>I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to really understand what it does" vibes here Not really. Are you suggesting that it isn't pretty difficult to navigate the legal system? Saying something is wonky and needs to be fixed does not automatically mean "Anarchy Now!" My point was that I think I do understand what the system does, and what it does is (largely) provide lots of work for people in the legal system. You see this when buying a house. You end up writing a bunch of checks to companies and people and it's not clear exactly what actual necessary service they provide, but it's not like you can NOT do it. Their service is necessary because the real estate laws make it necessary. In other industries we know this as regulatory capture. This is just regulatory capture of the regulatory system. >Jury nullification is not an unalloyed good. Nothing is an unalloyed good. To bolster your example, OJ got to walk as well. This is why there is an entire industry built up around just the jury selection process.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> I'm getting "nuke the legacy system without bothering to really understand what it does" vibes here > Not really. Are you suggesting that it isn't pretty difficult to navigate the legal system? Saying something is wonky and needs to be fixed does not automatically mean "Anarchy Now!" No, I'm suggesting that complexity may often have good reason. Without specific reform proposals, what you're saying registers similarly to "coding in programming languages is hard, so simplify it by coding in natural language!" > You see this when buying a house. You end up writing a bunch of checks to companies and people and it's not clear exactly what actual necessary service they provide, but it's not like you can NOT do it. Their service is necessary because the real estate laws make it necessary. Being ignorant of the value of a service doesn't make that service unnecessary. And honestly, I bet you could "NOT do it" -- if you could pay cash for the property. IIRC, a lot of that is actually required by whoever you get your mortgage from, because they know the value of it.
  - deltarholamda 4y ago
    >Without specific reform proposals I think requiring me to write a policy paper in HN comments is a bit onerous. In any event, I can't much help if my mild criticism is interpreted on your part as something deeply nefarious. >Being ignorant of the value of a service doesn't make that service unnecessary. The fact that a service exists does not make that service necessary. Or do you always buy the protection plan from Office Depot when you purchase a stapler? Anyway, I agree that the mortgage companies find great value in all of their various fees.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> the current legal system…is…over-engineered There are simultaneously arguments in this thread that the American legal system is insufficiently arcane and code-like, for what it’s worth.

freejazz 4y ago

> I'll admit that's possible, but you have to also admit that the current legal system (at least in the US, I don't know about elsewhere) is, shall we say, over-engineered) Huge Elon Musk rewrite the code from scratch vibes coming from you

dinkumthinkum 4y ago

That’s not why we have a jury system.