5 ms·

But the target audience is for laymen and not lawyers because we all have to abide the law and contracts and have to sign incomprehensive text that will have pu

But the target audience is for laymen and not lawyers because we all have to abide the law and contracts and have to sign incomprehensive text that will have punishable consequence on us! How to obey the law/regulations/rules when you do not understand? My lawer should sign all my incomprehensible contracts and be punished for violations then, if the text is for them.

llamaimperative 2y ago
The target audience isn’t laypeople. That’s why you have a right to legal representation. “Laypeople” language is way, way too ambiguous. Same reason you can’t write computer code in lay language. … there are consequences for lawyers if they fail to do this translation effectively…
- johnisgood 2y ago
  If people really cared, law would have been written in Lojban. :P
- mihaaly 2y ago
  I am sorry but law is for every citizen who has to obey it, so it is for everyone and everyone have to understand not only lawyers, are you sure you know what you are saying? There can be no lawyer at every time you do almost anything in life, be in traffic, raise children, participate in education, purchase something, travel, anything! Do you need an engineer sitting right next to you when you turn on the light or operate a vechicle? No! You need them for advanced things. If you argue that ALL law have to be understood only by lawyers then you are very very lost! What you have to obey, you have to understand! At least the relevant part (nuclear waste storage is perhaps not for you, I am just guessing), but even knowing which part is relevant you need to understand! Not enough lawyers to sit next to everyone guiding through everyday life that is regulated by law! It is difficult to understand because it made to sound ominous (fucked up for everyone), that's it, see the article. Form over essence. Also evolving without effort for restructuring so it becomes overcomplicated (see article). All formality over practicality and common sense, that's why it is so convoluted, or "it’s an accidental property", mimicing for centuries. Also don't mix up everyday language here used with friends over a beer that could be vague for outsiders - or themselves - but there ARE ways to be specific and understood with ordinary people too using the generic communication method law uses too: language. That could been used, that is being used in other areas in communicating towards layman (like doctors, I mean the smart ones, not engulfing you with latin explaining your condition and prognosis, right? Also instruction manuals for complex gadgets are not in ancient greek just for the sake of it, right, but ordinary and specific or even formal language that are still being understood by the ordinary consumer, as that is important.) Additionally: "Lawyers tended to prefer plain English versions of documents, and they rated those versions to be just as enforceable as traditional legal documents.". I rest my case.
  - llamaimperative 2y ago
    You don’t need a lawyer for simple things. Everyone knows (sans lawyer) you can’t kill people, steal things, run red lights, commit fraud, lie in contracts, and so on. Regarding your closing argument, what a wonderful argument against your point. Of course plain language contracts are just as enforceable as traditional ones. That is, you cannot argue, “your honor, this contract was written in plain language therefore it is not valid.” But enforceability is a distinct concept from (really a subset of) defensibility. The problem with plain language is it tends to be less exhaustive and more ambiguous, which while enforceable (a valid contract with force of law) will be easier to wiggle out of in court. To be clear, I understand your point and share your desire for this to be the case. Just having worked in a complex regulatory environment (health data), I don’t see it as even close to realistic, and it’s unrealistic for very good reasons.

llamaimperative 2y ago

The target audience isn’t laypeople. That’s why you have a right to legal representation. “Laypeople” language is way, way too ambiguous. Same reason you can’t write computer code in lay language. … there are consequences for lawyers if they fail to do this translation effectively…

johnisgood 2y ago
If people really cared, law would have been written in Lojban. :P
mihaaly 2y ago
I am sorry but law is for every citizen who has to obey it, so it is for everyone and everyone have to understand not only lawyers, are you sure you know what you are saying? There can be no lawyer at every time you do almost anything in life, be in traffic, raise children, participate in education, purchase something, travel, anything! Do you need an engineer sitting right next to you when you turn on the light or operate a vechicle? No! You need them for advanced things. If you argue that ALL law have to be understood only by lawyers then you are very very lost! What you have to obey, you have to understand! At least the relevant part (nuclear waste storage is perhaps not for you, I am just guessing), but even knowing which part is relevant you need to understand! Not enough lawyers to sit next to everyone guiding through everyday life that is regulated by law! It is difficult to understand because it made to sound ominous (fucked up for everyone), that's it, see the article. Form over essence. Also evolving without effort for restructuring so it becomes overcomplicated (see article). All formality over practicality and common sense, that's why it is so convoluted, or "it’s an accidental property", mimicing for centuries. Also don't mix up everyday language here used with friends over a beer that could be vague for outsiders - or themselves - but there ARE ways to be specific and understood with ordinary people too using the generic communication method law uses too: language. That could been used, that is being used in other areas in communicating towards layman (like doctors, I mean the smart ones, not engulfing you with latin explaining your condition and prognosis, right? Also instruction manuals for complex gadgets are not in ancient greek just for the sake of it, right, but ordinary and specific or even formal language that are still being understood by the ordinary consumer, as that is important.) Additionally: "Lawyers tended to prefer plain English versions of documents, and they rated those versions to be just as enforceable as traditional legal documents.". I rest my case.
- llamaimperative 2y ago
  You don’t need a lawyer for simple things. Everyone knows (sans lawyer) you can’t kill people, steal things, run red lights, commit fraud, lie in contracts, and so on. Regarding your closing argument, what a wonderful argument against your point. Of course plain language contracts are just as enforceable as traditional ones. That is, you cannot argue, “your honor, this contract was written in plain language therefore it is not valid.” But enforceability is a distinct concept from (really a subset of) defensibility. The problem with plain language is it tends to be less exhaustive and more ambiguous, which while enforceable (a valid contract with force of law) will be easier to wiggle out of in court. To be clear, I understand your point and share your desire for this to be the case. Just having worked in a complex regulatory environment (health data), I don’t see it as even close to realistic, and it’s unrealistic for very good reasons.