Comment by OldSchool
13 years ago
At least for me, accustomed to logic, determinism and mathematical models for laws of nature, this was actually a surprise. Instinctively I still find it distasteful, though I can't say I have anything better to offer other than the unrealistic ideal that all judges would be guaranteed to be truly impartial. I have never directly benefited nor been harmed by the nature of this 'code' either, unless you count getting out of traffic tickets by switching on a learned persona that has people skills.
> the unrealistic ideal that all judges would be guaranteed to be truly impartial.
Even this isn't necessarily a good thing. Part of the value of a judge is having an empathetic element in the position of final arbiter. Decisions aren't always "GUILTY / NOT GUILTY"; they're often long-form essays discussing the merits of the case, the factors under consideration, the logic and reasoning behind the ultimate conclusion and so on.
Math is nice because it can be reduced to a symbolic language. We're not at the point where we can reduce human beings to symbols yet.
You can be empathetic to someone without being partial to them.
But your point still stands. The reasoning and specificity of cases are what define common law precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_the...
Italian law defines itself as being complete at any given time. This is why I do not follow Italian law, because it's impossible to follow ipso facto. Is this formally consistent?
Presumably not. In passing, though, I do think a lot of HNers would be happier living in a civil law jurisdiction like Italy.