[HN Gopher] Legal Drafting and Computer Programming
___________________________________________________________________
Legal Drafting and Computer Programming
Author : admp
Score : 18 points
Date : 2021-12-24 19:00 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (davidallengreen.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (davidallengreen.com)
| hirundo wrote:
| I wonder if some kind of compiler/linter is possible for legal
| text. Like, "Warning: this comma is subject to ambiguous
| interpretation." But natural languages are poor candidates to use
| for composing unambiguous text, and any artificial language that
| you have to learn would be a problem, since it's critical that
| law is comprehensible to those it governs. On the other hand, it
| may be possible to construct a legal DSL that is more clear to
| the layman than the predominant legal jargon, and can be parsed
| into an S-expression.
|
| And if we can dream about unambiguous law, we can dream bigger,
| about a compiler or linter that could extract more conceptual
| flaws, like "Warning: this law would facially violate the First
| Amendment", or "this law creates an incentive structure that may
| cancel its intentions."
|
| This is probably too sci-fi to happen in my lifetime, but if I'm
| lucky maybe I'll live to see computer generated Friend of the
| Court briefs. We may be on the road to that with computer
| assisted analysis of historical language corpora to help
| determine original meanings.
| Kalium wrote:
| Legal jargon exists for the same reason programming languages
| exist: it is functionally impossible to be sufficiently precise
| in idiomatic vernacular. Too many things require precise and
| clear shared definitions. What is real property? What is a
| security? What is intent? What is a class? What is an object?
| What is memory? How do you even begin to function when you
| can't define these precisely?
|
| With this in mind, a person could make a reasonable case that
| legal language is already a DSL implemented in a natural
| language.
| vcdimension wrote:
| "Catala: A Programming Language for the Law" :
| https://arxiv.org/pdf/2103.03198.pdf
| 11thEarlOfMar wrote:
| "For the lawyer, each word in a formal legal document has (or
| should have) a purpose: it has been chosen instead of other
| words, and also instead of no words at all."
|
| I know people who can engage in free-form conversation in this
| manner. Not to say like a lawyer, but where there are no words
| missing, no words incorrect, and no words superflous. I've
| marvelled at that ability and find that style of speaking
| mesmerizing.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-24 23:00 UTC)