3 ms·
Laws are written to be interpreted and applied by humans. They aren’t computer programs. They are full of ambiguity. Much of this is by design because there are
by sarchertech 8mo ago
Laws are written to be interpreted and applied by humans. They aren’t computer programs. They are full of ambiguity. Much of this is by design because there are too many possible edge cases to design a fully algorithmic unambiguous legal system.
- bawolff 8mo agoTrue, but its not a free for all. Judges (especially in a common law juridsiction) are supposed to be consistent and interpret laws following certain principles. There are more right and less right interpretations - thus we can grade judges on how well they do their job.
- sarchertech 8mo agoNothing at all in the post you replied to > different answers under different scenarios implies that anyone is inconsistently applying any principles.
- bawolff 8mo agoI think the second paragraph is. They are saying that an "error" is any departure from legal principles, and the poster is saying that that is a bad definition of error.
- sarchertech 8mo agoIt doesn’t say anything about legal principles or consistency and it mentions that “errors” may only be departures from a surface level understanding. “ Such departures, however, may not always reflect true lawlessness. In particular, when the applicable doctrine is a standard, judges may be exercising the discretion the standard affords to reach a decision different from what a surface-level reading of the doctrine would suggest”