Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 3 of 4 pages
Couldn't you imagine a legal system that functioned differently? Where loopholes and technicalities were not allowed to be exploited, and the focus was on the intent of a law or contract rather than the narrow literal minutiae of the document?
The advancement of technology has more to do with this than altruistic lawyers.
But is that really true? Maybe the lawyers' way of thinking is the problem.
Of course the correct reaction to all that is that "They're just doing their jobs". Which is absolutely true, but it's also part of the problem. We've created way too many lucrative financial incentives for lawyers to use their skills to rig the game in favor of the already powerful. It's not really the lawyers' "fault", since those incentives would be hard for any normal human being to resist, but as long as they're accepting the rewards, they shouldn't really complain about the knocks.
I realize that my tweet yest was offensive and distasteful. An attempt at humor was a terrible mistake. Please accept my heartfelt apology!
Just about every type of profession these days has to put up with stereotypes based on the worst examples of the lot.
1. Chipper's tweet was stupid.
2. The column written about Chipper's tweet was stupider.
3. Many of the comments on this thread are stupidest.
Sure. But I don't remember him saying anything that hurt or degraded anybody before
We can't exactly use alligators to stop Europeans who overstay their student or tourist visas.
I used "hateful" because he seems to be hoping for serious injury via alligator. That's kind of hateful, IMO
Actually it seems like he's hoping people won't try to cross..
He almost certainly heard it somewhere else
He looked relaxed as he addressed the subject of “immigration reform” on Tuesday and even attempted a semi-cavalier joke at the expense of those concerned about America’s porous borders. “Maybe they’ll need a moat,” he said, dismissing their calls for more border security. “Maybe they want alligators in the moat.”
Now, in what special dialect is that not an apology? No, please. I learn a lot about language from our discussions :)
Don't most three-strikes laws require 3 felonies?
Someone who has committed 3 felonies is not a "petty criminal"
You've got a right to complain if the knocks are directed at you personally, and even more of a right to complain if you're trying to deincentivize the sort of lawyers I was referring to in my previous post. But there's a reason that only 19% of the public thinks "lawyers" are honest and/or ethical, and until the profession starts reining in its worst elements, those knocks are going to stick. It's not that most lawyers are personally unethical; it's just that so many of their "just doing my job" actions lead to many socially malignant outcomes---and while that's admittedly a subjective term, it means that you're going to get it from all sides.
When people think negatively of "lawyers", they're generally thinking of a variety of stereotypes: Tax lawyers who use loopholes to help the Romneys of the world avoid taxes; lobbyist lawyers who shape the key wording of new laws so as to rig the game in advance; defense lawyers who use technicalities to get obviously guilty clients off the hook; prosecutors who holler "Just answer yes or no" in an attempt to bully defendants or witnesses; corporate lawyers who use their talents to tip the scales evermore in favor of the 1%; divorce lawyers a la Curb Your Enthusiasm; etc., etc., all under the generic heading of "shyster".
(I would add that "loophole" and "technicality" are just the loser's label for "provisions I don't like.")
Hey, it makes more sense than the reason Barack Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize.
Very true, sorry to say.
Well that depends on why Obama won, and I've never read any reason/justification that makes sense, and I'm not sure any of the reasons/justifications I've read is the actual reason, so one day the actual reason may emerge, and it may make sense... or not... but the jury is still out IMHO
I'm more interested in how that comments relates to anything I've written here. I'll let snapper speak for himself, but what "absolute rules" have I proposed? I thought my historic crime was supposed to be not having any rules, so pardon my confusion.
It's only justified if you're a mob lawyer or a hired gun for similar sleazy types. Have you had cases where friends or others have mistaken you for that sort of a lawyer?
I'm objecting to 1) the excessive length of law, 2) the unnecessary complexity of the jargon, 3) the room 1) and 2) leaves for the sharp pencil brigade to run roughshod around the clear intent of laws.
No, loopholes and technicalities are mostly the things powerful people bribe lawmakers to insert in legislation to feather their nests.
Wait, that's not a bad thing, Ray? It makes sense that Romney pays a lower avg. tax rate (by far) than you or I do?
Lawyers are the one's 1) doing the lobbying, and 2) accepting the bribes (most lawmakers are lawyers).
If something can't be defined in <20 pages, there probably shouldn't be a law about it.
You don't get to dismiss them as "politicians with a law degree". When defining a group, the worst of that group count just as much as the best. (which is why it's silly to criticize or praise an individual for what group they belong to). However, you guys (i.e. lawyers) make a bunch of money because some of you (the politicians) create byzantine laws. It's your fault because you*, who are best positioned, don't make more of an effort to change it.
* by "you" I hope it's clear that is the universal you, not, specifically, you.
Good luck with the case by the way. I hope justice is served but, if that means you lose, that you do a good job and someone notices.
Good luck with the case by the way. I hope justice is served but, if that means you lose, that you do a good job and someone notices.
Lawyers should probably be replaced with robots, if possible.
I'm a sysadmin. And I've met Mordac the Preventer many times.
Ditto. Back in the late '80s & early '90s, some of my favorite people at in the courthouse you're practicing in were public defenders, & a few of their clients could probably be called "scum" with some justification (though probably in no greater proportion, really, than those who could afford their own attorneys). They always gave it their best, as they should have.
It seems to me (although IANAL), that there is much more of a constitutional basis for the nationalization of legal practices than that of medical practices.
Saying that "Please accept my apology" means "I don't apologize" is a truly tortured interpretation of the designation.
Barring that, they should be nationalized, paid scale like postmen, and handed out randomly to cases relevant in their area of expertise (criminal, real estate, family, patent, etc.). Paying your own lawyer should be considered bribery of a public official.
his response, "no, if I lose, I sleep well at night because the dirtbag deserved it anyway, justice is served, If I win? Yippee, crack open the campaign. It's when they're not scum, or I don't know, then this job bothers the #### out of me, what if a good man goes to jail because I ###### up? That's what bothers me and keeps me up at night" ,
If we replaced all lawyers with 85 IQ civil servants, the system would still function fine. If you did that with Drs. and nurses, shitloads of people would die.
Routing smart people into the law is almost certainly a huge dead-weight loss to society; legal services are mostly a non-productive arms race.
No they won't, anymore than they'll write novels or screenplays.
Of course not. Legal services are special. They could never be automated. That would be impossible. Automated intelligences could never be programmed to look through a set of legal codes, find operative variables and apply them to cases by conditional logic.
Except that's not what we have today. Today we have laws that run to hundreds and thousands of pages, ensconced in lawyer-babble that no one can understand, and most lawmakers don't even read, before they vote.
But how are you going to automate the actual legal analysis part?
Either you include provisions that cover all sorts of possibilities, which makes laws long and complex, or you give discretion to judges, bureaucrats, and law enforcers to make up #### as they go along. Which is more problematic?
Statutes are complicated because they attempt to regulate very complex things
Thing is that I'm confident that it would meet with zero acceptance. When we're caught up in the legal system we all want to argue that our case is special and as long as that's the case (and it will be for the foreseeable future) nothing much is going to be automated.
There is a single correct resolution to any area of dispute.
You're not, anymore than you're going to automate novels and screenplays and operas and symphonies. Sam's talking out his ass again.
You're not, anymore than you're going to automate novels and screenplays and operas and symphonies.
Data mining isn't hard. If the law is a set of codes to which citizens are held to account equally then the known data of a given case can be fed into a system and processed. If you get an honest lawyer drunk, he'll tell you that 90% of law school is learning how to "think like a lawyer," which means "research a lot of really dry books, compare similar cases in a way conducive to your client's claims, and find weaknesses in your opponents claims. There is absolutely nothing about that process that can't be automated. And trust me buddy; it will be. Professional services, including legal services, is the next great culling of the human labor markets.
If legal argument is fundamentally impossible for advanced AI, then the law is not a set of legal codes to be referenced and interpreted "blindly," but a contest of who can hire the best sophist to spin a tale.
Data mining isn't hard. If the law is a set of codes to which citizens are held to account equally then the known data of a given case can be fed into a system and processed. If you get an honest lawyer drunk, he'll tell you that 90% of law school is learning how to "think like a lawyer," which means "research a lot of really dry books, compare similar cases in a way conducive to your client's claims, and find weaknesses in your opponents claims.
Note how the lawyers suddenly equate their work with art. Apparently the law is a code of rules to be applied evenhandedly according to the facts, unless that means it can be done by a computer and put lawyers out of work. At that point, law becomes a symphony!
It wouldn't function at all.
Why? If both sides have bad lawyers, the odds of a fair outcome are just as good as if both have good lawyers.
Are you a lawyer, Sam? Because "thinking like a lawyer" actually involves:
1. Being confronted with a fact pattern (a question or story by a client).
2. Knowing or determining which statutes/rules are applicable.
3. Knowing or determining which case law is applicable.
4. Knowing or determining what the applicable statutes/rules/case law says and how to apply it.
5. Understanding, based on 2-4, which questions to ask your client and which further information is needed.
6. Analyzing, based on 1-5, what the strengths and weaknesses of your client's case are.
7. Advising the client based on 1-6.
(There's also memo and brief writing, having the ability to handle many deadlines in many cases at once, pushing paper, etc etc.)
This is more than "data mining." How is your "system" going to "process" all of this?
Here, we have an adversarial system of law and justice, wherein each side puts forth its best arguments, within set rules and frameworks, and something approaching truth results.
If you'd bother to pay attention, a "dog whistle" applies to specific and particular phrases. Saying that "Please accept my apology" means "I don't apologize" is a truly tortured interpretation of the designation. Possible he was being sarcastic, I'm sure, but, that's also something else.
There are already interesting studies in the humanities being written with a healthy boost from automated searches of large databases; and LexisNexis is the model for such things. If you want to write a book about spiders, or study how 19th-century novels treated slavery, you can spend 10 years reading randomly, or you can start data-mining. And the odd thing is that books written in this way are more interesting than a lot of books written by dint of exhaustive reading. Automation (and its more AI-like algorithms) can bring together information you'd never hope to connect "manually."
The bolded, I do not concur with. There are no intrinsic truths to be found in law, and the goal of each arguing party is not to arrive at a truth, but to arrive at the most favorable outcome for their client. This is why I think lawyers make generally poor government officials - their formal training teaches them to argue well even when they're fundamentally wrong. The training and experience doesn't teach them to arrive at optimal outcomes, it teaches them to arrive at optimal arguments.
I have no idea whether your client deserved to fry or get off, or something in between, but I've gotta like your reply to your girlfriend's father. I kind of wish I'd been the fly on the wall for that one.
I suppose actual litigators for jury trials are probably safe for our lifetime -- an AI probably isn't going to be able to read a jury and deal with things like say, knowing that callously bashing a witness injured in some claim or a rape victim or whatnot has to be done with some manner of care.... but everything else? Machines simply have the advantage of having 'recall' capabilities that exceed the human mind and the ability to perform dizzying calculations, scoring probabilities, etc.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (2 members)
Page rendered in 0.9193 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed