4 ms·

There are findings of fact (what happened, context) and findings of law (what does the law mean given the facts). I don't think inconsistentcy in findings of la

There are findings of fact (what happened, context) and findings of law (what does the law mean given the facts). I don't think inconsistentcy in findings of law is acceptable, really. If laws are bad fix the laws or have precident applied uniformly rather than have individual random judges invent new laws from the bench. Sentencing is a different thing.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
Nursie 9mo ago
Leeway for human interpretation of laws is not a bug, it's a feature. It doesn't make things bad laws. This was the whole problem with the ludicrous "code is law!" movement a handful of years ago. No, it's not, law is made for people, life is imprecise and fairness and decency are not easy to encode.
- vidarh 9mo ago
  Really, there are three parts to a judgement: facts, the law, and the application of them. There should be no leeway in determining what the law says about a given situation. If that is not decidable, it is a bug. However, what a fair judgement is given the facts and the law, is really a separate issue. You can introduce measures to give clear guidance what the law says, and still give judges flexibility. One of the upsides of "code is law" in that respect is being able to provide a clear statement of what the law says and require the judge to then explain in their judgement why that justifies or does not justify a given judgement. A lot of bad judgement might be a lot more blatant (or not happen) if the judge had to justify outright ignoring the law.
  - Nursie 9mo ago
    'The law' is open to judicial and legal interpretation. There isn't always a single 'the law' to interpret in complex cases. While there are many, many rules, they are not as simple as code and they rely on deep layers of precedent. Common law is made up of case history more than statute. > One of the upsides of "code is law" in that respect is being able to provide a clear statement of what the law says No, "code is law" in fact always ignored what any actual law said, in favour of framing everything as a sort of contract, regardless of whether said contract was actually fair or legal, and it removed the human factor from the whole equation. It was a basic failure to understand law.
- fluidcruft 8mo ago
  How is that different from saying prejudice and cronyism is a feature?
  - Nursie 8mo ago
    Well for a start, it assumes good faith on the part of the participants, rather than the default assumption of bad faith and corruption you'd like to project. There are also built-in controls in the form of reviews and appeals. And more generally, humans are squishy and imprecise, trying to apply precise, inflexible, code-like law to immensely analog situations is not a recipe for good outcomes.
    - fluidcruft 8mo ago
      Why should anyone assume good faith about or trust any part of the government? It is well known, studied and documented that justice is not uniform in practice. Yes, ideally it is not, but we do not live in some abstract utopia where judges are not corrupt. It's so odd that people would say that it is a feature that judges are inconsistent. Juries are one thing, but judges driving their own agendas independent of lawmakers and juries is not a great look.
      - Nursie 8mo ago
        > Why should anyone assume good faith about or trust any part of the government? Because we’re not all paranoid libertarians? I dunno man, going through life with that attitude seems like a recipe for unhappiness and frustration. It’s not about judges being inconsistent. It’s about providing good judgements, which are appropriate to the specific circumstances.
        krapp 8mo ago
        >going through life with that attitude seems like a recipe for unhappiness and frustration. Going through life in blissful ignorance of the incompetence and malice driving the systems of violence and control around you is even worse. Unhappiness and frustration are necessary prerequisites to any improvements to quality of life. Terminally happy people are just grazing cattle, fit only for the slaughterhouse.

deleted 9mo ago

[deleted]

Nursie 9mo ago

Leeway for human interpretation of laws is not a bug, it's a feature. It doesn't make things bad laws. This was the whole problem with the ludicrous "code is law!" movement a handful of years ago. No, it's not, law is made for people, life is imprecise and fairness and decency are not easy to encode.

vidarh 9mo ago
Really, there are three parts to a judgement: facts, the law, and the application of them. There should be no leeway in determining what the law says about a given situation. If that is not decidable, it is a bug. However, what a fair judgement is given the facts and the law, is really a separate issue. You can introduce measures to give clear guidance what the law says, and still give judges flexibility. One of the upsides of "code is law" in that respect is being able to provide a clear statement of what the law says and require the judge to then explain in their judgement why that justifies or does not justify a given judgement. A lot of bad judgement might be a lot more blatant (or not happen) if the judge had to justify outright ignoring the law.
- Nursie 9mo ago
  'The law' is open to judicial and legal interpretation. There isn't always a single 'the law' to interpret in complex cases. While there are many, many rules, they are not as simple as code and they rely on deep layers of precedent. Common law is made up of case history more than statute. > One of the upsides of "code is law" in that respect is being able to provide a clear statement of what the law says No, "code is law" in fact always ignored what any actual law said, in favour of framing everything as a sort of contract, regardless of whether said contract was actually fair or legal, and it removed the human factor from the whole equation. It was a basic failure to understand law.
fluidcruft 8mo ago
How is that different from saying prejudice and cronyism is a feature?
- Nursie 8mo ago
  Well for a start, it assumes good faith on the part of the participants, rather than the default assumption of bad faith and corruption you'd like to project. There are also built-in controls in the form of reviews and appeals. And more generally, humans are squishy and imprecise, trying to apply precise, inflexible, code-like law to immensely analog situations is not a recipe for good outcomes.
  - fluidcruft 8mo ago
    Why should anyone assume good faith about or trust any part of the government? It is well known, studied and documented that justice is not uniform in practice. Yes, ideally it is not, but we do not live in some abstract utopia where judges are not corrupt. It's so odd that people would say that it is a feature that judges are inconsistent. Juries are one thing, but judges driving their own agendas independent of lawmakers and juries is not a great look.
    - Nursie 8mo ago
      > Why should anyone assume good faith about or trust any part of the government? Because we’re not all paranoid libertarians? I dunno man, going through life with that attitude seems like a recipe for unhappiness and frustration. It’s not about judges being inconsistent. It’s about providing good judgements, which are appropriate to the specific circumstances.
      - krapp 8mo ago
        >going through life with that attitude seems like a recipe for unhappiness and frustration. Going through life in blissful ignorance of the incompetence and malice driving the systems of violence and control around you is even worse. Unhappiness and frustration are necessary prerequisites to any improvements to quality of life. Terminally happy people are just grazing cattle, fit only for the slaughterhouse.