Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 337 posts

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#221

Post by pjscott »

Anecdotally: when that guy in Wisconsin ran his car through a parade, I was curious what would happen to him. I looked up the relevant parts of the Wisconsin criminal laws, which had a rewrite some years ago. And holy shit they were amazing! So clearly written! So well thought out! This was what it sounds like when lawyers who knew what they were talking about decided to write it down clearly. I salute everyone involved.

At least one lawyer out there can write worth a damn, and (having read some godawful wording in contracts) I wish more would try.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#224

Post by gault8121 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

For everyone commenting "laypeople aren't the intended audience", this monstrosity was a recent Texas constitutional ballot proposal, i.e. all voters in the state were asked to vote on it: > The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school pu…

Here are the text complexity scores from different measures for this text.

Flesch Reading Ease score: -24 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: impossible to comprehend.

Gunning Fog: 40.7 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: EXTREMELY difficult to read.

Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 35.7 Grade level: College Graduate and above.

The Coleman-Liau Index: 13 Grade level: college

The SMOG Index: 25 Grade level: graduate college

Automated Readability Index: 41.7 Grade level: College graduate

Linsear Write Formula : 57.5 Grade level: College Graduate and above.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#225

Post by dclowd9901 »

sseagull wrote: post #187
AlbertCory wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. A long phrase requires the user to keep the entire meaning in their head until the end. Can you show us some "long readable phrases"?

Long, readable phrases (in literature, anyway) tend to be made up of independent clauses with semicolons, and are perfectly understandable (to me, anyway). I sometimes prefer long sentences in some forms of literature - short sentences can be choppy and halting. "He was indistinctly conscious that the pardon of this priest was the greatest assault and the most formidable attack which had moved him yet; that his obdur…

In these cases, the “longness” of the phrase and its nonexistent independent clauses are just formalities. We’re calling the same thing by another name. I think it confuses people when there are guidances out there about not using overlong “sentences” but then they are undermined by overlong sentences which are merely “sentences” by technicality.

The rule is, write clearly. And if it’s not clear, write it more clearly. That’s pretty much it.

If you need guidance, Cormack McCarthy is the professor.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#226

Post by alar44 »

gault8121 wrote: post #224
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

For everyone commenting "laypeople aren't the intended audience", this monstrosity was a recent Texas constitutional ballot proposal, i.e. all voters in the state were asked to vote on it: > The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school pu…

Here are the text complexity scores from different measures for this text. Flesch Reading Ease score: -24 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: impossible to comprehend. Gunning Fog: 40.7 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: EXTREMELY difficult to read. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 35.7 Grade level: College Graduate and above. The Coleman-Liau Index: 13 Grade level: college The SMOG Index: 25 Grade…

Are you suggesting that our legal system should be understandable by the dumbest person? I don't see how that's feasible or desirable.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#227

Post by usefulcat »

ErikVandeWater wrote: post #206
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

For everyone commenting "laypeople aren't the intended audience", this monstrosity was a recent Texas constitutional ballot proposal, i.e. all voters in the state were asked to vote on it: > The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for the reduction of the amount of a limitation on the total amount of ad valorem taxes that may be imposed for general elementary and secondary public school pu…

To be fair, the laypeople are also likely bombarded with advertising about the ballot measure. The advertising will simplify what's stated, and get at some potential consequences of voting yes vs. voting no. There could actually be a benefit with this language in that uninformed voters will actually not vote on it, whereas generally speaking, people vote with complete disregard to their level of knowledge about a sub…

Not all ballot measures receive lots of advertising. In Texas, ballot measures like this with an impenetrable description are not uncommon. My sense is that if people can't figure out what something is actually about (as in this case) then they mostly go "sure, whatever" and vote for it.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#228

Post by alar44 »

sseagull wrote: post #187
AlbertCory wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. A long phrase requires the user to keep the entire meaning in their head until the end. Can you show us some "long readable phrases"?

Long, readable phrases (in literature, anyway) tend to be made up of independent clauses with semicolons, and are perfectly understandable (to me, anyway). I sometimes prefer long sentences in some forms of literature - short sentences can be choppy and halting. "He was indistinctly conscious that the pardon of this priest was the greatest assault and the most formidable attack which had moved him yet; that his obdur…

Those semicolons can be replaced with periods and negates your point. That's just a string of ideas, not really one logical sentence.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#229

Post by TaylorAlexander »

alar44 wrote: post #226
gault8121 wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here are the text complexity scores from different measures for this text. Flesch Reading Ease score: -24 (text scale) Flesch Reading Ease scored your text: impossible to comprehend. Gunning Fog: 40.7 (text scale) Gunning Fog scored your text: EXTREMELY difficult to read. Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 35.7 Grade level: College Graduate and above. The Coleman-Liau Index: 13 Grade level: college The SMOG Index: 25 Grade…

Are you suggesting that our legal system should be understandable by the dumbest person? I don't see how that's feasible or desirable.

I doubt that is what they are saying. It seems more likely they are saying the text should not be "extremely difficult to read" or "impossible to comprehend".

Though actually what they are saying is "I put the text in these algorithms and got these scores". It is left to others to draw conclusions like I did above.

Re: Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language

#230

Post by TaylorAlexander »

nwiswell wrote: post #163
jmugan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I actually had to vote on that and couldn't parse out what it was saying, so I left that one blank. I have a PhD, it's in computer science, but still.

As a rule of thumb, if the ballot measure is incomprehensible, you're safe in voting against it (which, obnoxiously enough, can sometimes mean voting yes) There is never a good reason for using language this obtuse, but there's lots of bad reasons. This measure in particular seems engineered to be just clear enough to be upheld by a judge, but also sufficiently obfuscated so that the public doesn't know what it's act…

> you're safe in voting against it (which, obnoxiously enough, can sometimes mean voting yes)

Sure but if you literally cannot understand it, it may be difficult to determine whether voting against it means voting yes or no.

Post reply on HN