3 ms·

As much as programmers like to draw analogies between law and code, they don't really work the same way at all.

OutOfHere 2y ago
> they don't really work the same way Why not? It would seem that you're just used to a state of exploitation and selective application, both of which are a mockery of justice. Sometimes it helps to see things from an outsider's perspective.
- lolinder 2y ago
  I'm not commenting on the way things should be, I'm commenting on the way things are. And if you're saying that this ruling is bad because it doesn't work well in an idealized model of the law as you think it should be... that's an interesting observation, but you can hardly fault the judge for crafting a ruling that works in the context of the actual legal system.
- SllX 2y ago
  Because laws are executed by people, not computers.
- Almondsetat 2y ago
  Why yes?
tocs3 2y ago
There are times that parts of a law should be vague to allow those evolved to make intelligent decisions. They should be specific enough to come to a resolution quickly if needed.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  This opens the door to routine injustices whereby those who can afford expensive attorneys get a sweet deal, and everyone else gets stabbed in the name of justice.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Courts tend to follow precident, indeed precident is nearly the same as law. It's not really the case that an expensive attorney can argue his way around the well-established interpretations of the meaning of the constitution and other laws. Maybe, in the case of something novel, or for a question that has never come up before. It's not at all routine.
  - autoexec 2y ago
    that sounds like what we have right now.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Yes, the constitution itself only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and only states that "probable cause" is required for a warrant. These terms are undefined, and left to the courts to interpret.
- giantg2 2y ago
  The definitions are well defined in theory. How they get applied to specific cases and how they have been perverted over time is the real problem. Take warrants and probable cause. It's supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime has been committed. The quality of many warrants today seem to completely miss this to the point that many of the descriptions fail to even claim that the elements of the offense have been satisfied. Then we have such a lazy system that warrants foe summary offenses don't even have to be for the correct crime - all that needs to be claimed is that any crime has been committed. That's how it goes when the system is too lazy to give each issue the correct level of attention to protect your basic rights.

> they don't really work the same way Why not? It would seem that you're just used to a state of exploitation and selective application, both of which are a mockery of justice. Sometimes it helps to see things from an outsider's perspective.

lolinder 2y ago
I'm not commenting on the way things should be, I'm commenting on the way things are. And if you're saying that this ruling is bad because it doesn't work well in an idealized model of the law as you think it should be... that's an interesting observation, but you can hardly fault the judge for crafting a ruling that works in the context of the actual legal system.
SllX 2y ago
Because laws are executed by people, not computers.
Almondsetat 2y ago
Why yes?

tocs3 2y ago

There are times that parts of a law should be vague to allow those evolved to make intelligent decisions. They should be specific enough to come to a resolution quickly if needed.

OutOfHere 2y ago
This opens the door to routine injustices whereby those who can afford expensive attorneys get a sweet deal, and everyone else gets stabbed in the name of justice.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Courts tend to follow precident, indeed precident is nearly the same as law. It's not really the case that an expensive attorney can argue his way around the well-established interpretations of the meaning of the constitution and other laws. Maybe, in the case of something novel, or for a question that has never come up before. It's not at all routine.
- autoexec 2y ago
  that sounds like what we have right now.

SoftTalker 2y ago

Yes, the constitution itself only prohibits "unreasonable" searches and seizures, and only states that "probable cause" is required for a warrant. These terms are undefined, and left to the courts to interpret.

giantg2 2y ago
The definitions are well defined in theory. How they get applied to specific cases and how they have been perverted over time is the real problem. Take warrants and probable cause. It's supposed to be that by a preponderance of the evidence that the crime has been committed. The quality of many warrants today seem to completely miss this to the point that many of the descriptions fail to even claim that the elements of the offense have been satisfied. Then we have such a lazy system that warrants foe summary offenses don't even have to be for the correct crime - all that needs to be claimed is that any crime has been committed. That's how it goes when the system is too lazy to give each issue the correct level of attention to protect your basic rights.