[jjav]

> Nilay Patel argues that law is undeterministic (and its application ambiguous)

I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible.

I've always thought that we (as a country) should maintain one single ordered list of specific crimes and punishments. Every new case that wants to set a punishment must insert it into this ordered list and explain convincingly why it fits into the list at the proposed position.

This would prevent the outrageous differences we see today where someone gets a few days of house arrest for murder and another guy gets a decade of solitary confinment for stealing a pen.

[codeduck]

> I argue that of all things, law should be as deterministic as possible.

It is (probably) impossible to write down a complete list of rules for how to judge even petty crimes. Someone who steals a loaf of bread because their child is starving should not be punished the same way as someone who steals a loaf of bread because they're a kleptomaniac.

No two situations are identical, and the problems start when you try to come up with a one-size-fits-all approach.

A human with sound judgement (and, arguably, some empathy) should be in control.

[readthenotes1]

You can divorce sentencing from understanding what legalities apply to determining guilt.

You can also deterministically ask what characteristics or traits have been considered when applying sentencing and give the precedence for that.

[z3t4]

Someone with psychopathic characteristics would lie in their favour. So someone would need to fact check, a doctor would have to check if the children are actually starving? And on the other side, someone who contribute greatly to community and society, should that person get a lower sentence because of that?