3 ms·

Interesting, thanks for the pointe > What mattered, in the view of the Lords, was what could be verifiably said to have actually happened. It would be interes

by davorak 14y ago

Interesting, thanks for the pointe > What mattered, in the view of the Lords, was what could be verifiably said to have actually happened. It would be interesting to see how "verifiably" and "actually happened" would be refined to produce a judgement. I could imagine at least refinement towards frequentist statistics, Bayesian methods, "I know it when I see it"(gut feeling, other non-quantitative standard of obviousness).

jacques_chester 14y ago
I would say that main things to remember about law in common law jurisdictions are: 1. The judge does not seek evidence, does not provide evidence, and does not provide arguments. The presentation of fact and law is the job of the plaintiff/respondent or prosecutor/defendant (depending on civil or criminal law). 2. The judge rules on what is introduced during court cases. Judges almost always follow judgements that have been made previously -- precedent, also called stare decisis or "let the decision stand". In this case the precedent identified was Hotson. A lower court judge who presumes to modify a higher court's principles can expect that the higher court will accept an appeal on matters of law. 3. The legal system's purpose is to render certain, verifiable judgements. Judgements can't be uncertain ("You are sentenced to a 95% chance of prison" or "between 20,000 and 50,000 is awarded to the plaintiff for damages" is not helpful), so as a step in the process of legal reasoning, information about uncertainty is deliberately destroyed. This is called "balance of evidence" or "preponderance of evidence" in civil trials, or "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal trials. It is deliberately imprecise, because all attempts to introduce mechanical rules for evidentiary judgement have so far proved to be even more gameable than the fuzzy statements. The legal system is profoundly introspective. Lawyers will introduce matters of legal interpretation in argument, these must be addressed. Appeals to higher courts are usually only possible on questions of law, meaning that very fine details of legal reasoning are constantly being teased out. Judges must constantly weigh what the law is, and they also at higher levels frequently decide how the law is determined to be what it is. Given that subjects like jurisprudence and interpretation of laws can have massive practical consequences, it's an area that receives great scrutiny. I became interested in the methods of analysis and judgement because of Australian constitutional law, where there are -- depending how you count -- between 4 and 6 basic schools of thought on how to interpret the Australian Constitution.

by davorak 14y ago

jacques_chester 14y ago

I would say that main things to remember about law in common law jurisdictions are: 1. The judge does not seek evidence, does not provide evidence, and does not provide arguments. The presentation of fact and law is the job of the plaintiff/respondent or prosecutor/defendant (depending on civil or criminal law). 2. The judge rules on what is introduced during court cases. Judges almost always follow judgements that have been made previously -- precedent, also called stare decisis or "let the decision stand". In this case the precedent identified was Hotson. A lower court judge who presumes to modify a higher court's principles can expect that the higher court will accept an appeal on matters of law. 3. The legal system's purpose is to render certain, verifiable judgements. Judgements can't be uncertain ("You are sentenced to a 95% chance of prison" or "between 20,000 and 50,000 is awarded to the plaintiff for damages" is not helpful), so as a step in the process of legal reasoning, information about uncertainty is deliberately destroyed. This is called "balance of evidence" or "preponderance of evidence" in civil trials, or "beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal trials. It is deliberately imprecise, because all attempts to introduce mechanical rules for evidentiary judgement have so far proved to be even more gameable than the fuzzy statements. The legal system is profoundly introspective. Lawyers will introduce matters of legal interpretation in argument, these must be addressed. Appeals to higher courts are usually only possible on questions of law, meaning that very fine details of legal reasoning are constantly being teased out. Judges must constantly weigh what the law is, and they also at higher levels frequently decide how the law is determined to be what it is. Given that subjects like jurisprudence and interpretation of laws can have massive practical consequences, it's an area that receives great scrutiny. I became interested in the methods of analysis and judgement because of Australian constitutional law, where there are -- depending how you count -- between 4 and 6 basic schools of thought on how to interpret the Australian Constitution.