Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
description
Transcript of Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
Inconsistency Robustness and the Law: A Random Walk
Ron A. Dolin
Conference on Inconsistency Robustness
Stanford University, July 29-31, 2014
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin2
Overview
The Issue A Question Jurisprudential Perspective Legal Expert Systems Statistical “Inconsistency” Inherent Indeterminacy
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin3
A Real Issue – “Inconsistent”?Punished for saving water: A drought Catch-22
“While Gov. Jerry Brown is warning that California faces its worst drought since record-keeping began and regulators have approved fines of up to $500 for wasting water, some Southern California cities are continuing to issue warnings and citations to residents who let their lawns go brown.” – LA Times, July 17, 2014
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin4
Literature Starting Points Habermas (2001)
Constitutional Democracy: A Paradoxical Union of Contradictory Principles?
Kutz (1993) Just Disagreement: Indeterminacy and
Rationality in the Rule of Law Engel (2004)
Inconsistency in the Law: In Search of a Balanced Norm
Google Scholar (now!)
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin5
Terminology Inconsistency
Mutually exclusive: A and not A simultaneously *
Variable: Sometimes yes, sometimes no Paradox: facially inconsistent but resolvable Uncertainty: e.g., rules of evidence Indeterminate, Under-determinate, “One
Rule” Unpredictable
* With 100% certainty of both; exists only in models, like law, but never in physics?
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin6
Pros and (Implied) Cons Consistency:
Predictable Efficient Fair (for similar cases)
Inconsistency: Evolutionary * Handles exigent circumstances, exceptions Fair (for distinguishable cases)
* Inconsistent in old law becomes consistent in new law?
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin7
Question
Why does the U.S. Supreme Court have an odd number of justices; what would happen if it didn't?
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin8
Constitutional Democracy (Habermas) Three principles:
Positive (legislative process) Compulsory (state enforced) Individualistic (guarantee liberties)
Paradox: majority rule vs. individual rights Resolution:
Evolutionary (rules catch up with norms) Amendments (super-majority, lengthy) Non-political court action (next slide)
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin9
U.S. v. Carolene Products (1938)“Footnote Four”
Court-warranted Protection: Enumerated rights (e.g. speech) Political participation (e.g. no
gerrymandering) Discrete and insular minorities (e.g. race)
“Robust” balance between majority/minority Assumes viable enforcement exists Brown v. Board of Ed. vs. Civil Rights Act
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin10
Multiple Branches Nonacquiescence
The intentional failure by one branch of the government to comply with the decision of another. (wikipedia)
Worcester v. Georgia (1832): "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" – President Andrew Jackson
Is this inconsistent? From who's perspective? “Relative inconsistency”? Does the paradox get resolved?
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin11
Hierarchies vs. Choice of Law
Supremacy Clause: “supreme law of the land”
Medical and recreational marijuana Marriage: gay, interracial, poly
International: U.S. Discovery vs. E.U. Privacy Right to forget vs. right to know (crim hist)
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin12
Geography
Regional differences – Circuit Courts split With an even number of SCOTUS justices?
Differences include laws, norms, procedures Forum shopping: Texaco v. Pennzoil ($12B)
If expectations allow for such differences, is this still an inconsistency? Both sides knew what would result from a change of venue.
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin13
Evidence When is a document “responsive”?
A person's opinion varies day to day! How consistent are different juries? Uncertainty: reasonable doubt, clear and
convincing, preponderance of evidence OJ Simpson: found not guilty of murder, but
guilty of wrongful death; consistent “within the uncertainty standard”?
Res judicata, collateral estoppel
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin14
Punishment
e.g. Crack vs. cocaine Does societal bias (e.g. race) result in legal
“inconsistency” in punishments? Guidelines: mandatory vs. suggested Balancing consistency and exceptions
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin15
Legal Expert Systems
Neota Logic Systems – Inconsistency Checking:
Conclusions (RHS) not set by any rule Conclusions set by (possibly inconsistent)
multiple rules Facts (LHS or inputs) not used Cycles: e.g. A>B, B>C, C>A
Internal structure makes checks easy
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin16
Statistical “Inconsistencies” (Engel)
Unexpected distributions Outliers Balance consistency against the benefits of
inconsistency (e.g. exceptions, evolution)
It's not hard to model statistical “inconsistencies” across multiple instances – is that “inconsistency robust”?
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin17
Inherent Indeterminacies (Kutz) Words: e.g. “reasonable” person,
expectation of privacy, force, doubt, etc. Rules Individual Norms Competing Norms
Are these “inconsistencies” when resulting in different interpretations and/or outcomes?
July 30, 2014; IR'14 Stanford University Copyright © 2014, Ron Dolin18
Conclusion
Inconsistencies of various forms are common across the legal system.
The legal system has many methods of dealing with inconsistencies.
There are pros and cons of legal inconsistencies – “it depends”.