4 ms·
In effect, we pay lawyers to be ridiculously pedantic for us where pedanticism is required or desired. That level of pedanticism elsewhere, though, is incredib
by beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago
In effect, we pay lawyers to be ridiculously pedantic for us where pedanticism is required or desired.
That level of pedanticism elsewhere, though, is incredibly annoying or precisely what is not desired.
- efitz 2y agoI’ve wondered from time to time if we could replace some of the wordiness of laws and legal documents with bullet lists. For example, a trial about some interpretation of a word in a law could be contributed back to the law as a bullet point that says, “this also applies if …”.
- xnorswap 2y agoWhat you're describing is law, most of it is bullet points, take for example the computer misuse act 1990, section 1: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/1 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/section/1 Or if you're more patient, the whole lot: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/crossheading/computer-misuse-offences https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/18/crossheading/co... It's all bullet points.
- FredPret 2y ago> a trial about some interpretation of a word in a law could be contributed back to the law as a bullet point that says, “this also applies if …”. Is this not what happens in case law?
- efitz 2y agoThe law doesn’t literally get updated with a bullet point. Subsequently attorneys have to do ever greater searches to analyze all the precedents.