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

CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 301 posts

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#191

Post by lanstin »

sheepscreek wrote: post #153
tsimionescu wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that the law is a huge mess. It is certainly far less of a mess than any code base I've ever seen, given the gigantic scope of what it applies to, and how many people if affects. Note that the legal system is indeed a huge mess, but that happens because of many other reasons - not a problem with the wording or vagueness of the law, but with the explicit (malicious) intentions of law-makers, judges, poli…

> ..and how many times it’s used undefined This is the real advantage of codifying law into a programming language. You can have validation and assertion that is automated. And a strict structure, free from ambiguity. As an additional advantage, multilingualism becomes more accessible, with the codified program/definition acting as the lingua franca of law. Thus, someone who only knows English could make sense of Jap…

I cannot imagine some system that goes from a formal language to reality not having ambiguity. Even going from mathematical formalism to mathematical truth you can’t get all the truth. I imagine getting all the justice would be harder.

And I have heard lawyers explain that sometimes ambiguity, in contracts at least, is a good thing as it reduces the amount of a priori negotiation for low probability events. The the low probability event happens and the contract is ambiguous then you negotiate at that time and maybe sue.

And for laws, I think a bit of flex in the system probably would be a good thing. Give some scope for local judgment an autonomy to the people closest to the situation.

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#192

Post by kstrauser »

hahajk wrote: post #188
kstrauser wrote: post #30

I think what I'd rather see is a standardize test suite format for laws that spells out the intentions. Once I lived in a state that proposed a very simple anti-child porn law with good intent, but it was too simple. It read sort of like "anyone sending explicit pictures of minors from a cell phone will be guilty of conveying child porn". It was written in the proper legal jargon, but wasn't a whole lot more detailed…

It's great that your congressperson was enlightened enough to pull the bill. Some states (such as Minnesota) apparently actively prosecute children for sexting. [1] https://www.aclu.org/news/juvenile-justice/minnesota-prosecu...

I was pleasantly surprised.

Minnesota is so bizarrely, irrationally wrong on that one. That poor kid needs an adult to sit her down and explain why sending out nude pics as a minor is a really bad idea, not to label her as a sex offender. Now, if someone (especially an adult) received those pics and shared them, go ahead and charge that person.

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#193

Post by sjy »

MichaelDickens wrote: post #177
tsimionescu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite a misunderstanding of how the law actually works, probably enhanced by lots of lawyer TV emphasizing obscure wording tricks. In reality, laws are already written in a relatively normal language, and the words almost always mean exactly what they mean in plain English. The only problem is that the legal concepts they describe are themselves complex, and often they end up in a tangle of references to othe…

IANAL but from my experience reading laws, they're written in a way that looks like it's trying to replicate programming-language-esque nested logic, but in prose format—instead of using physical layout to establish the relationships between concepts, they use words, which I find more confusing. I would rather read laws written in a more structured format.

The US Code is divided into numbered titles, sections, paragraphs and subparagraphs which can link to and incorporate each other by reference. This tree structure is reflected in typographic conventions which visually distinguish operative provisions from headings, indices and editorial notes. Isn't this the same kind of "structured format" as a code repository made up of libraries, modules, source files and functions?

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#195

Post by from »

tsimionescu wrote: post #136
jeppester wrote: post #104

For years I've tried to convince my lawyer friend that something exactly like this would be great to have, and then it turns out to have existed probably all the time. I think this is truly awesome. Every law should be written in a language like this, and presented publicly with syntax highlighting and consistent formatting rules. Then it should be made part of the school curriculum to learn the law language. I belie…

This is quite a misunderstanding of how the law actually works, probably enhanced by lots of lawyer TV emphasizing obscure wording tricks. In reality, laws are already written in a relatively normal language, and the words almost always mean exactly what they mean in plain English. The only problem is that the legal concepts they describe are themselves complex, and often they end up in a tangle of references to othe…

Then you should be able to tell us what defrauding someone of their intangible right of honest services encompasses :)

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#196

Post by post-it »

btilly wrote: post #86
EPWN3D wrote: post #17

I don't think there's much of a problem with actually reasoning about a law's text that a computer can help solve. The complicated bit is weighing equities, which still requires humans and lawyers.

I think you meant, "...humans, lawyers, and bribes." No, I don't have a lot of faith in our legal system. Why do you ask?

Sure, but this new language wouldn't help with that.

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#197

Post by unethical_ban »

dathinab wrote: post #173

programmers love to propose using "programming language" or similar for law But this fails to realize that _ambiguity (in some ways) is a fundamental important part of law_. This is because the world itself is fundamental ambiguous (in some ways)/clear cut. Naturally not all ways of ambiguity are wanted. But you can be sure that with "code as law" the ways loopholes are abused will get worse in my opinion. I would ev…

Agreed. Although I don't think this is a bad idea, I think of the idea of perfectly defined laws and perfectly enforceable laws are terrifying. If every law on the books today were able to be perfectly enforced and perfectly monitored, our lives would be utterly miserable.

I'm not going to argue that's a problem with laws vs. enforcement, but either way, our society is built around ambiguity and unequal enforcement of law.

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#198

Post by post-it »

from wrote: post #195
tsimionescu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite a misunderstanding of how the law actually works, probably enhanced by lots of lawyer TV emphasizing obscure wording tricks. In reality, laws are already written in a relatively normal language, and the words almost always mean exactly what they mean in plain English. The only problem is that the legal concepts they describe are themselves complex, and often they end up in a tangle of references to othe…

Then you should be able to tell us what defrauding someone of their intangible right of honest services encompasses :)

Whatever statute you're looking at likely defines "intangible right of honest services" and "defrauding."

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#200

Post by insanitybit »

LudwigNagasena wrote: post #144
tsimionescu wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is quite a misunderstanding of how the law actually works, probably enhanced by lots of lawyer TV emphasizing obscure wording tricks. In reality, laws are already written in a relatively normal language, and the words almost always mean exactly what they mean in plain English. The only problem is that the legal concepts they describe are themselves complex, and often they end up in a tangle of references to othe…

The words almost always mean almost exactly what they mean in plain English. That’s why the law is a huge mess. As a fun exercises, try to find how many definitions of “child” there are in the US law and how many times it’s used undefined.

> As a fun exercises, try to find how many definitions of “child” there are in the US law and how many times it’s used undefined.

I don't see how a language is going to solve this. This isn't really an issue of language, it's an issue with ambiguity in the very intent itself. That's why we have judges, who interpret that intent.

Post reply on HN