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

261–270 of 301 posts

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#261

Post by rendaw »

p-e-w wrote: post #211

This project seems to implicitly assume that a formally specified code of laws, where statutes can be interpreted largely mechanistically, is a good thing (and by extension, that the existing system of human interpreters with discretion and margins of error is a problem to be overcome). I don't disagree with this assumption outright, but it's certainly not obvious to me that it is correct, and the authors appear to p…

This seems obvious to me and seems something that law already strives to: you end up with very precise law regardless via case law, but with a high legal cost to reach that point. At the very least, it's not something I'd expect to be on Catala's homepage.

I think this is closely related to rule of law too. Per https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law

> In particular, laws should be open and clear, general in form, universal in application, and knowable to all.... The law should... comprise determinate requirements that people can consult before acting, and legal obligations should not be retroactively established.

What are the benefits of ambiguous laws?

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#262

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

alexvitkov wrote: post #238
kdmccormick wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legal codes aren't meant to work like programming languages. It is impossible for a legislator to predict how the world will work when their law is applied, and it is highly unlikely that they will anticipate every situation and context in which their law will be invoked. Judges and juries and lawyers all exist to help us interpret the inexact legal code in a way that is (hopefully usually; but obviously not always)…

That doesn't add up with how the average piece of legal code looks. Even when I read a brand new piece of legislature it's an impossible soup of words, attempting to document every possible edge case the legislators thought of. If the point was to leave room for interpretation by a judge and you concede yoy don't have full context of how what you're writing will be applied, surely you could write much more sensible a…

It adds up to how the average piece of legal code works in practice.

Law is political. It's persuasive, not deterministic. It often comes down to a judgment based on the relative political power of the entities in question.

Even if you find a statute that says very clearly that X is unlawful, there will be situations where a lawyer will argue that it isn't.

Sometimes they'll make that case successfully - for various possible reasons, not all of which will be lawful themselves.

This is one reason why statute law is expanded by case law. And good luck trying to automate case law.

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#263

Post by jsty »

rendaw wrote: post #261
p-e-w wrote: post #211

This project seems to implicitly assume that a formally specified code of laws, where statutes can be interpreted largely mechanistically, is a good thing (and by extension, that the existing system of human interpreters with discretion and margins of error is a problem to be overcome). I don't disagree with this assumption outright, but it's certainly not obvious to me that it is correct, and the authors appear to p…

This seems obvious to me and seems something that law already strives to: you end up with very precise law regardless via case law, but with a high legal cost to reach that point. At the very least, it's not something I'd expect to be on Catala's homepage. I think this is closely related to rule of law too. Per https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law > In particular, laws should be open and clear, general in for…

> What are the benefits of ambiguous laws?

That they can deal with the massive amounts of ambiguity & blurred lines / grey areas the world has to offer. Too many of our everyday concepts can’t be expressed rigorously for a formal encoding & determinate decision process - a famous example being obscenity’s famed “I know it when I see it” definition - and many are highly context dependent.

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#265

Post by _a_a_a_ »

rendaw wrote: post #261
p-e-w wrote: post #211

This project seems to implicitly assume that a formally specified code of laws, where statutes can be interpreted largely mechanistically, is a good thing (and by extension, that the existing system of human interpreters with discretion and margins of error is a problem to be overcome). I don't disagree with this assumption outright, but it's certainly not obvious to me that it is correct, and the authors appear to p…

This seems obvious to me and seems something that law already strives to: you end up with very precise law regardless via case law, but with a high legal cost to reach that point. At the very least, it's not something I'd expect to be on Catala's homepage. I think this is closely related to rule of law too. Per https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law > In particular, laws should be open and clear, general in for…

Laws very often look for intent of actions as well as the actions themselves.

And they are ambiguous: "beyond reasonable doubt" is what, as a percentage, in your view?

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#266

Post by hutzlibu »

rendaw wrote: post #261
p-e-w wrote: post #211

This project seems to implicitly assume that a formally specified code of laws, where statutes can be interpreted largely mechanistically, is a good thing (and by extension, that the existing system of human interpreters with discretion and margins of error is a problem to be overcome). I don't disagree with this assumption outright, but it's certainly not obvious to me that it is correct, and the authors appear to p…

This seems obvious to me and seems something that law already strives to: you end up with very precise law regardless via case law, but with a high legal cost to reach that point. At the very least, it's not something I'd expect to be on Catala's homepage. I think this is closely related to rule of law too. Per https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law > In particular, laws should be open and clear, general in for…

"What are the benefits of ambiguous laws? "

Freedom and flexibility. Reality is infinitely complex, trying to encode real world problems 100% accurate into code can only work by rounding a lot, with the result of oversimplification with the result of lots of "unjust" rulings, when you do not take the intent of the law into account, but only the words. We have this problem already (a lot) many things that seem very wrong but are legal by the letters of the law.

(Mobsters being released because of formalities for example, even though everyone knee they were guilty)

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#267

Post by insanitybit »

p-e-w wrote: post #212
insanitybit wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Indeed. Ambiguity in legal codes is a feature that allows them to remain relevant for more than a couple of years, and the formal-law "utopia" that some commenters here appear to desire would be a nightmare if put into practice.

Exactly, it is truly horrifying to think of a law encoded such that it can not be superseded by human interpretation.

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#268

Post by brnt »

hutzlibu wrote: post #266
rendaw wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems obvious to me and seems something that law already strives to: you end up with very precise law regardless via case law, but with a high legal cost to reach that point. At the very least, it's not something I'd expect to be on Catala's homepage. I think this is closely related to rule of law too. Per https://www.britannica.com/topic/rule-of-law > In particular, laws should be open and clear, general in for…

"What are the benefits of ambiguous laws? " Freedom and flexibility. Reality is infinitely complex, trying to encode real world problems 100% accurate into code can only work by rounding a lot, with the result of oversimplification with the result of lots of "unjust" rulings, when you do not take the intent of the law into account, but only the words. We have this problem already (a lot) many things that seem very wr…

Can ambiguity be quantified, and/or codified? Risking sounding like a painfully naive layman, would it be possible to define the range in which to apply the rule as function of range of inputs? When uncertaintu on inputs increases or veers outside of some well known range, then bandwidth for the judge increases?

Re: CatalaLang/catala: Programming language for law specification

#270

Post by [deleted] »

wiz21c wrote: post #242
steego wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect the motivation of this project is a lot more practical than what you’re projecting onto it, and I suspect you might be discounting how often law is transformed into code that runs on state IT systems. As someone who is familiar with the process of turning statutes into code, I can appreciate what this project endeavors to do, even if the value is limited to providing clarification for software developers.

It is hugely useful. I worked on implementation of law in code for 10 years and the big problem is this: there's a constant communication between software devs and law poeple. For exmaple "did you code this like that ?", "why did the system did that ?", "if I code this way, does it reflect the law precisely ?". You have to constantly trnaslate from the code base to the language of lawyers and vice versa. Doing that w…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN