6 ms·

This is the best of our system (a check on the legislative more effective than re-election every 4yr) and the worse (having to know about this decision, i.e. hi

This is the best of our system (a check on the legislative more effective than re-election every 4yr) and the worse (having to know about this decision, i.e. hire gaggle of expensive experts to find the "get out of jail free" decision for you. And, whether you are a criminal depends on your geographic (which circut) and temporal (has it been resolved by SCOTUS yet) location.) Rather than having knowable, deterministic laws we are all at the mercy of the lawyers and judges we happen to get that "day". It's still probably the least bad system.

chii 14y ago
i look forward to the day when a law is written in a formal language (such as mathematics), such that a machine can be used to apply it, and that no ambiguity exists. Thus, you can a head of time, tell if a deed will break any existing law before performing the deed.
- stusmith1977 14y ago
  I vaguely remember there was some discussion of this in 'Metamagical Themas' by Douglas Hofstader. It's been a while since if I read it, but if I remember correctly he drew some parallels between law and provability in maths - basically, you can either have a system of law which cannot cover everything you want to make laws about, or you have a system of law which does, but which has some undecidable laws. Feel free to correct if I've misremembered.
  - shantanubala 14y ago
    You can take it a step further: until we can model human behavior mathematically, a legal system attempting to regulate that human behavior cannot be modeled in a mathematical way. In other words, by the time we have consistent laws (in the mathematical sense), "Precrime" could already exist.
  - sea6ear 14y ago
    Very similar to Godel's incompleteness theorem, or perhaps an application of it.
- wac 14y ago
  I believe that you could probably extend Godel's theorems to argue that this isn't feasible.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- smoyer 14y ago
  The "formal language of mathematics" is can only be read by those who have taken the time to understand it's symbols, syntax and grammar. Legalese generally also has very specific meaning, but without training "us mere mortals" fail to interpret it correctly too. I guess that one positive impact of your idea would be moving mathematicians into the almost celebrity status of lawyers. They'd be fun to watch when interviewed too.
  - CodeMage 14y ago
    Here's an idea: if legalese is similar to mathematics in that without training we fail to interpret it correctly, couldn't we incorporate it in our education the same way we did with mathematics? Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to teach kids to be lawyers. Being a lawyer would be like having a PhD in mathematics. But we do teach kids basic calculus, algebra and stuff like that, so why not "basic legal stuff" (whatever it's called)?
- nkohari 14y ago
  This is quite possibly one of the most dystopian thoughts I've ever heard.
  - CodeMage 14y ago
    Now we just need someone to write a book and make a movie. Hopefully in that order.
  - nateabele 14y ago
    Really? Really?? So, you're saying that's more dystopian than the thought of secret laws for 'national security', on top of a body of laws that already spans over 200,000 pages, whereby even with non-poorly-written laws, you're still likely breaking one every single day? Because that's what we have now. So if those are my options, then shit yes, I will take mathematical certainty of the legality of my actions any day.
    - epo 14y ago
      And you think it is a good idea to replace a non-optimal system by a guaranteed-to-be-worse one? Really? Really??
      - brianchu 14y ago
        Is it "guaranteed" to be worse? I'd argue that you really can't say anything with such certainty. If true friendly AI is ever possible (and that is up in the air), such a system would be a better one. Obviously, this is all speculation.
      - jrogers65 14y ago
        I think it may be worth looking at just how non-optimal the current system is: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110411/full/news.2011.227.html http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110411/full/news.2011.227.ht... People are emotional and subjective by their very nature. It is not possible to be objective - one can only tend towards objectivity by applying constant introspection and reassessing one's world view. Nonetheless, an Ape is not capable of being a Vulcan. It is, frankly, a travesty that people's fates are being decided by other people's stomachs.
- nathan_long 14y ago
  As computer programs show us, the only way to remove ambiguity is to be incredibly specific. In practice, this would mean laws that are very, very long, and have to revised very frequently. Why? Because you can't formalize away the fact that humans can't think of everything ahead of time. We make laws about your rights regarding messages you write on paper, then telegraphs and telephones and email come along. Either you try to interpret the law to cover them, or you revise your definitions of "messages" to include or exclude them. In a "specify everything" system, everything that the courts currently interpret would have to be sent back to the legislature. The effect would depend on what you do with gray areas in court. Option 1 would be "if a case is ambiguous, put it on hold until the legislature clarifies the law." That would clog up the courts and effectively merge the court and the legislature. Option 2 would be "decide cases based strictly on existing law and let the legislature revise things for the next go round." That would create a lot of absurd outcomes, where a small loophole, with no ability to apply "common sense", means innocent people are convicted or guilty people are freed.
  - rapind 14y ago
    Option 2 would almost be workable if you had a very streamlined system for implementing revisions, to prevent more than one individual from exploiting a loophole before it's closed. Like a group of elected officials who's only job is to close these loopholes without massive fanfare and a simple vote. A process that is incredibly fast and decisive in order to get double digits done per day.
    - saidajigumi 14y ago
      > A process that is incredibly fast and decisive in order to get double digits done per day. Because, y'know, having officials crank through tons of difficult decisions per day is such a supremely effective[1] and corruption-free way to create a social process. It's worked so very well for the patent system, why not for law and jursiprudence? [1] cf. "decision fatigue": https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fr...
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  All hail the computer!
- danielweber 14y ago
  The law is not black and white, and any attempt to make it so will end very very poorly.
  - bediger4000 14y ago
    If that's so, why do we give every one in the USA a black-and-white obligation to know and follow the law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, we're often told. No slack gets cut for judgement most of the time.
  - jamieb 14y ago
    On the contrary, it is our current system of allowing laws that are totally ambiguous that results in the poor situation we are in now. For example, the 2nd amendment is black and white. I have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. And yet how many laws are on the books making it an offense to bear arms? New rule: (forall ?X (implies (and (isa ?X USCitizen) \ (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) (bearArms ?X))) - Rule 2 added. New rule: (thereExists ?X (isa ?X USCitizen) \ (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) - Rule 20 Added New rule: (implies (and (locatedIn ?X ?Y) (isa ?Y USState)) \ (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) - Rule 21 Added ... New rule: (isa California USState) -Rule 1850-342 Added ... New rule: >(forall ?Y (implies (locatedIn ?Y California) (not (bearArms ?Y))) - Error: New Rule #4422 conflicts with Rule #2 Request Ruling: (locatedIn JamieBriant224112344 California) (bearArms JamieBriant22411234) - Data is consistent. The problem with our legal system is that it is expected that it is ambiguous. Those in power tell us that it is good for the law to be ambiguous. Yet what are the results: 1. You need a law degree to even practice - control. 2. The government can selectively prosecute - corruption. 3. Fear of losing, even when morally right. 4. Everyone is a criminal.
- scott_s 14y ago
  We want some ambiguity. It inserts human judgement into the loop.
- timwiseman 14y ago
  I do not believe we want such a system even if it were possible. Many things involve context (it is illegal to murder someone, but a killing in the context of self-defense is often not murder). Even where context is not explicitly recognized by the law, we want judgment and discretion to exist (speeding because you are drag racing is very different than speeding to a hospital with a bleeding passenger.)
betterunix 14y ago
Actually, most people will never see the judge or be at his mercy. Most people accept the plea bargain they are offered. We literally do not have enough judges for every arrested person to exercise their right to a trial.

chii 14y ago

i look forward to the day when a law is written in a formal language (such as mathematics), such that a machine can be used to apply it, and that no ambiguity exists. Thus, you can a head of time, tell if a deed will break any existing law before performing the deed.

stusmith1977 14y ago
I vaguely remember there was some discussion of this in 'Metamagical Themas' by Douglas Hofstader. It's been a while since if I read it, but if I remember correctly he drew some parallels between law and provability in maths - basically, you can either have a system of law which cannot cover everything you want to make laws about, or you have a system of law which does, but which has some undecidable laws. Feel free to correct if I've misremembered.
- shantanubala 14y ago
  You can take it a step further: until we can model human behavior mathematically, a legal system attempting to regulate that human behavior cannot be modeled in a mathematical way. In other words, by the time we have consistent laws (in the mathematical sense), "Precrime" could already exist.
- sea6ear 14y ago
  Very similar to Godel's incompleteness theorem, or perhaps an application of it.
wac 14y ago
I believe that you could probably extend Godel's theorems to argue that this isn't feasible.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
smoyer 14y ago
The "formal language of mathematics" is can only be read by those who have taken the time to understand it's symbols, syntax and grammar. Legalese generally also has very specific meaning, but without training "us mere mortals" fail to interpret it correctly too. I guess that one positive impact of your idea would be moving mathematicians into the almost celebrity status of lawyers. They'd be fun to watch when interviewed too.
- CodeMage 14y ago
  Here's an idea: if legalese is similar to mathematics in that without training we fail to interpret it correctly, couldn't we incorporate it in our education the same way we did with mathematics? Just to be clear, I'm not proposing to teach kids to be lawyers. Being a lawyer would be like having a PhD in mathematics. But we do teach kids basic calculus, algebra and stuff like that, so why not "basic legal stuff" (whatever it's called)?
nkohari 14y ago
This is quite possibly one of the most dystopian thoughts I've ever heard.
- CodeMage 14y ago
  Now we just need someone to write a book and make a movie. Hopefully in that order.
- nateabele 14y ago
  Really? Really?? So, you're saying that's more dystopian than the thought of secret laws for 'national security', on top of a body of laws that already spans over 200,000 pages, whereby even with non-poorly-written laws, you're still likely breaking one every single day? Because that's what we have now. So if those are my options, then shit yes, I will take mathematical certainty of the legality of my actions any day.
  - epo 14y ago
    And you think it is a good idea to replace a non-optimal system by a guaranteed-to-be-worse one? Really? Really??
    - brianchu 14y ago
      Is it "guaranteed" to be worse? I'd argue that you really can't say anything with such certainty. If true friendly AI is ever possible (and that is up in the air), such a system would be a better one. Obviously, this is all speculation.
    - jrogers65 14y ago
      I think it may be worth looking at just how non-optimal the current system is: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110411/full/news.2011.227.html http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110411/full/news.2011.227.ht... People are emotional and subjective by their very nature. It is not possible to be objective - one can only tend towards objectivity by applying constant introspection and reassessing one's world view. Nonetheless, an Ape is not capable of being a Vulcan. It is, frankly, a travesty that people's fates are being decided by other people's stomachs.
nathan_long 14y ago
As computer programs show us, the only way to remove ambiguity is to be incredibly specific. In practice, this would mean laws that are very, very long, and have to revised very frequently. Why? Because you can't formalize away the fact that humans can't think of everything ahead of time. We make laws about your rights regarding messages you write on paper, then telegraphs and telephones and email come along. Either you try to interpret the law to cover them, or you revise your definitions of "messages" to include or exclude them. In a "specify everything" system, everything that the courts currently interpret would have to be sent back to the legislature. The effect would depend on what you do with gray areas in court. Option 1 would be "if a case is ambiguous, put it on hold until the legislature clarifies the law." That would clog up the courts and effectively merge the court and the legislature. Option 2 would be "decide cases based strictly on existing law and let the legislature revise things for the next go round." That would create a lot of absurd outcomes, where a small loophole, with no ability to apply "common sense", means innocent people are convicted or guilty people are freed.
- rapind 14y ago
  Option 2 would almost be workable if you had a very streamlined system for implementing revisions, to prevent more than one individual from exploiting a loophole before it's closed. Like a group of elected officials who's only job is to close these loopholes without massive fanfare and a simple vote. A process that is incredibly fast and decisive in order to get double digits done per day.
  - saidajigumi 14y ago
    > A process that is incredibly fast and decisive in order to get double digits done per day. Because, y'know, having officials crank through tons of difficult decisions per day is such a supremely effective[1] and corruption-free way to create a social process. It's worked so very well for the patent system, why not for law and jursiprudence? [1] cf. "decision fatigue": https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-fr...
ceejayoz 14y ago
All hail the computer!
danielweber 14y ago
The law is not black and white, and any attempt to make it so will end very very poorly.
- bediger4000 14y ago
  If that's so, why do we give every one in the USA a black-and-white obligation to know and follow the law? Ignorance of the law is no excuse, we're often told. No slack gets cut for judgement most of the time.
- jamieb 14y ago
  On the contrary, it is our current system of allowing laws that are totally ambiguous that results in the poor situation we are in now. For example, the 2nd amendment is black and white. I have the right to bear arms and that right shall not be infringed. And yet how many laws are on the books making it an offense to bear arms? New rule: (forall ?X (implies (and (isa ?X USCitizen) \ (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) (bearArms ?X))) - Rule 2 added. New rule: (thereExists ?X (isa ?X USCitizen) \ (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) - Rule 20 Added New rule: (implies (and (locatedIn ?X ?Y) (isa ?Y USState)) \ (locatedIn ?X UnitedStatesLegalJurisdiction)) - Rule 21 Added ... New rule: (isa California USState) -Rule 1850-342 Added ... New rule: >(forall ?Y (implies (locatedIn ?Y California) (not (bearArms ?Y))) - Error: New Rule #4422 conflicts with Rule #2 Request Ruling: (locatedIn JamieBriant224112344 California) (bearArms JamieBriant22411234) - Data is consistent. The problem with our legal system is that it is expected that it is ambiguous. Those in power tell us that it is good for the law to be ambiguous. Yet what are the results: 1. You need a law degree to even practice - control. 2. The government can selectively prosecute - corruption. 3. Fear of losing, even when morally right. 4. Everyone is a criminal.
scott_s 14y ago
We want some ambiguity. It inserts human judgement into the loop.
timwiseman 14y ago
I do not believe we want such a system even if it were possible. Many things involve context (it is illegal to murder someone, but a killing in the context of self-defense is often not murder). Even where context is not explicitly recognized by the law, we want judgment and discretion to exist (speeding because you are drag racing is very different than speeding to a hospital with a bleeding passenger.)

betterunix 14y ago

Actually, most people will never see the judge or be at his mercy. Most people accept the plea bargain they are offered. We literally do not have enough judges for every arrested person to exercise their right to a trial.