4 ms·

English, specifically whatever dialect that is, is a horrible medium for encoding laws. Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious. Law is code. Why

by just2n 13y ago

English, specifically whatever dialect that is, is a horrible medium for encoding laws. Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious. Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet?

epoxyhockey 13y ago
Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? Because lawyers love buggy code.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 13y ago
> English, specifically whatever dialect that is, is a horrible medium for encoding laws. Compared to what, exactly? > Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious. That's a really common problem. > Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? Mostly, because there is no first party money in it, and there's considerable expense to do it as a third-party solution, because of exactly the problem that this is directed at solving. There's quite a bit of money in third-party solutions, which are provided by several vendors to the people who have the money and motivation to pay for them (people who professionally deal with the law), as components of wider research suites that cover more than just statute law (including many copyright-protected sources). Third-party solutions that use only the free-of-copyright public information don't have a lot of market, and would have a lot of expense to create and maintain (not the system, so much as keeping the data current.)
nawitus 13y ago
English is not the problem here. You can write sufficiently clear language (which is not formated with caps lock..) in English. The problem is just the custom in United States of writing complex laws instead of writing the main points and letting the courts interpret it. For example, here's[1] a reasonably sane-looking law written in English. 1. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1994/en19940543.pdf http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1994/en19940543.pdf
ttcbj 13y ago
I recently read Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses. RM built most major highways and parks in NY state, and effectively became an absolute ruler in his domain. For 40 years he exercised near total control. It made me understand the political process completely different way. For RM, the 'broken' differencing format was a feature, not a bug. It allowed him to slip though all kinds of law changes without people understanding what he was up to. The book has many, many examples of exactly this differencing format being put to use to gain power. The point about the differencing format is more broadly true - prior to reading the book, I thought politics was about having the right ideas, and explaining them clearly. But the book compellingly argues that politics is really about obtaining and wielding power. The people who thrive in politics are more interested in power than ideas. It is a book that is well worth reading, especially if you are an idealistic programmer (like I was) who cannot understand why we can't just 'clean politics up.' (Also, Caro's LBJ biography is awesome, with similar themes.)
- moens 13y ago
  "...politics is really about obtaining and wielding power. The people who thrive in politics are more interested in power than ideas." This should be the preface to every history book. BTW, s/politics/business/ and it is still true. Not to say that politics and business are not interested in ideas... they are, but not fundamentally. Ideas are only a means to power. Understand this and you will understand much about an idea you wish to see implemented.
jarrett 13y ago
> Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? Properly drafted English-language laws do read as code. It's like how you can describe formal logic in English: "All Americans wear hats. I am an American. Therefore I wear a hat." I take it you're arguing for something like Lojban, though. I see two problems there. First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on one's fundamental right to read the laws of the land. Second, and probably more incurably, these types of languages don't remove the most important kinds of ambiguity in laws. Most disputes over ambiguity in legal text do not arise from syntactic ambiguity. It's not usually confusion over what words the "not" modifies, or which "if" is nested within which. Rather, most problems arise from semantic ambiguity, i.e. the meaning of the individual words. What constitutes a "bank," exactly? What does it mean to do something "in a reasonable period of time?" If you're "bearing" arms, where exactly are you bearing them? You might argue that the problem then comes down to defining your terms well. That's certainly a noble goal when drafting legal text. But one of the principle goals of legal drafting is to make the text flexible enough to apply to specific circumstances that the authors could not have foreseen. This, of course, is in constant tension with the need to be precise. The more precise you are, the easier it is to interpret the law, but the more likely it is that someone will find a loophole arising from the excessive narrowness of your language. A language like Lojban won't alleviate these difficulties, unfortunately.
- echohack 13y ago
  > First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on one's fundamental right to read the laws of the land... Legaleese requires you to take years of law classes to even understand, and makes the same problem. I think it's more accessible to run something through a compiler...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    It might take years to become a lawyer, but I bet their are more than a few people here who have spotted an error (international or accidental) in a contract that has passed under the eyes if a lawyer or two. My wife and have caught several major errors in our time that could have cost us a lot of money. There is no substitute for a careful reading of a contract, legal training optional.
jforman 13y ago
Because law is not expressible as code. The phrase, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is captured in human language for good reason — it contains embedded values and cultural assumptions that cannot be written objectively.
dpeck 13y ago
The view that law is code is a common fallacy. In the law there is seldom a right answer, merely answers that can be argued to be more right than others in the given context.
sigil 13y ago
> Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious. Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? You might be interested in this experiment: https://github.com/divegeek/uscode https://github.com/divegeek/uscode (Federal code, not state.)

by just2n 13y ago

English, specifically whatever dialect that is, is a horrible medium for encoding laws. Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious. Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet?

epoxyhockey 13y ago

Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? Because lawyers love buggy code.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 13y ago

> English, specifically whatever dialect that is, is a horrible medium for encoding laws. Compared to what, exactly? > Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious. That's a really common problem. > Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? Mostly, because there is no first party money in it, and there's considerable expense to do it as a third-party solution, because of exactly the problem that this is directed at solving. There's quite a bit of money in third-party solutions, which are provided by several vendors to the people who have the money and motivation to pay for them (people who professionally deal with the law), as components of wider research suites that cover more than just statute law (including many copyright-protected sources). Third-party solutions that use only the free-of-copyright public information don't have a lot of market, and would have a lot of expense to create and maintain (not the system, so much as keeping the data current.)

nawitus 13y ago

English is not the problem here. You can write sufficiently clear language (which is not formated with caps lock..) in English. The problem is just the custom in United States of writing complex laws instead of writing the main points and letting the courts interpret it. For example, here's[1] a reasonably sane-looking law written in English. 1. http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1994/en19940543.pdf http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/1994/en19940543.pdf

ttcbj 13y ago

I recently read Robert Caro's biography of Robert Moses. RM built most major highways and parks in NY state, and effectively became an absolute ruler in his domain. For 40 years he exercised near total control. It made me understand the political process completely different way. For RM, the 'broken' differencing format was a feature, not a bug. It allowed him to slip though all kinds of law changes without people understanding what he was up to. The book has many, many examples of exactly this differencing format being put to use to gain power. The point about the differencing format is more broadly true - prior to reading the book, I thought politics was about having the right ideas, and explaining them clearly. But the book compellingly argues that politics is really about obtaining and wielding power. The people who thrive in politics are more interested in power than ideas. It is a book that is well worth reading, especially if you are an idealistic programmer (like I was) who cannot understand why we can't just 'clean politics up.' (Also, Caro's LBJ biography is awesome, with similar themes.)

moens 13y ago
"...politics is really about obtaining and wielding power. The people who thrive in politics are more interested in power than ideas." This should be the preface to every history book. BTW, s/politics/business/ and it is still true. Not to say that politics and business are not interested in ideas... they are, but not fundamentally. Ideas are only a means to power. Understand this and you will understand much about an idea you wish to see implemented.

jarrett 13y ago

> Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? Properly drafted English-language laws do read as code. It's like how you can describe formal logic in English: "All Americans wear hats. I am an American. Therefore I wear a hat." I take it you're arguing for something like Lojban, though. I see two problems there. First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on one's fundamental right to read the laws of the land. Second, and probably more incurably, these types of languages don't remove the most important kinds of ambiguity in laws. Most disputes over ambiguity in legal text do not arise from syntactic ambiguity. It's not usually confusion over what words the "not" modifies, or which "if" is nested within which. Rather, most problems arise from semantic ambiguity, i.e. the meaning of the individual words. What constitutes a "bank," exactly? What does it mean to do something "in a reasonable period of time?" If you're "bearing" arms, where exactly are you bearing them? You might argue that the problem then comes down to defining your terms well. That's certainly a noble goal when drafting legal text. But one of the principle goals of legal drafting is to make the text flexible enough to apply to specific circumstances that the authors could not have foreseen. This, of course, is in constant tension with the need to be precise. The more precise you are, the easier it is to interpret the law, but the more likely it is that someone will find a loophole arising from the excessive narrowness of your language. A language like Lojban won't alleviate these difficulties, unfortunately.

echohack 13y ago
> First, it's not the (de facto) national language, which infringes on one's fundamental right to read the laws of the land... Legaleese requires you to take years of law classes to even understand, and makes the same problem. I think it's more accessible to run something through a compiler...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- lostlogin 13y ago
  It might take years to become a lawyer, but I bet their are more than a few people here who have spotted an error (international or accidental) in a contract that has passed under the eyes if a lawyer or two. My wife and have caught several major errors in our time that could have cost us a lot of money. There is no substitute for a careful reading of a contract, legal training optional.

jforman 13y ago

Because law is not expressible as code. The phrase, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" is captured in human language for good reason — it contains embedded values and cultural assumptions that cannot be written objectively.

dpeck 13y ago

The view that law is code is a common fallacy. In the law there is seldom a right answer, merely answers that can be argued to be more right than others in the given context.

sigil 13y ago

> Further, the diffing format used there is atrocious. Law is code. Why haven't we fixed this yet? You might be interested in this experiment: https://github.com/divegeek/uscode https://github.com/divegeek/uscode (Federal code, not state.)