669

submitted 4 months ago by Daxter101@lemmy.blahaj.zone to c/196@lemmy.blahaj.zone

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 12 points 4 months ago

Well that'd require (among other things) a simplified set of laws, clear structure, with the goal of adhering to the spirit, not the letter of the law. The result can be expected to be faster trials, reduced lawyer workloads, and all the reduction in costs that come with that.

Pssh, who wants that?

[-] Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 months ago

I'd go the other way, adhering very strictly to the letter of the law without the tiniest bit of wiggle room or interpretation of anything as nebulous as the 'spirit' of the law.

Trouble being that natural languages that people use to converse are ill suited for that level of precision and detail. I've thought that perhaps a constructed language, something between a language and programming code may be a better way to write laws.

[-] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Output still would have to be interpreted by us, if I'm understanding you correctly. Laws become innumerable, which is already a problem; how many paralegals do professional lawyers actually need at this point?

Alabama has a law on the books banning dominoes on Sundays. Every state and even the federal govt has laws in place which can be abused, even if only until a judge prevails. "One can beat the rap, but not the ride"... How about beating the ride, too?