Law is not code
I have not yet read Lawrence Lessig’s “Code and other laws of cyberspace“, but I like its catchphrase, “Code is Law”. Sadly, the reverse do not hold, particularly not in the real world.
As a programmer, it’s natural for me to view any legal text, be it a law, an agreement or something else, as a set of definitions, conditions and other instructions, similar to a computer program. Most of the time, these instructions are badly written; they do not strive for simplicity, they do not cover corner cases, and for many inputs the outcome is impossible to determine without resorting to case law. In computer terms, way too much checking is done at runtime (when laws are applied) instead of compile time (when they are written).
There’s an interesting article up on Kuro5hin which argues along the same lines, and how the awful quality of most laws makes for a very opaque society, where only legally trained people with a lot of time on their hands can fully understand the rules.
The author draws paralells between the way laws are written and computer programs are constructed, and suggests that the law making process should be “open sourced”; I think the process is already about as open as it can be. What’s lacking is good engineering: the will to strive for clear and simple designs.
Computer programmers realized the need for a structured approach to programming almost as soon as programming was invented. This was needed to be able to construct and maintain large programs. There is, no doubt, a lot of structured thinking in law as well, with its 3000+ year history, but somewhere along the way it seems that clear and unambigious writing fell off the list of things to prioritize.
Of course, my reasoning is a classic example of someone, new to a field, thinking they can apply all lessons learned in another field. I might have more insightful commentary after a few years of law school.
Tags: Juridik, rättsautomation, rättsinformation