Judges, Law, Code, Flexibility?

I was listening to Tim Ferriss’ interview with Balajis the other day and he is discussing the idea that code is law.

Balajis proposes that courts can become better via smart-contracts.

Balajis shared some thoughts below:

So in a sense it’s a violation of equal protection, every time somebody with the same facts walks into a Wyoming court and gets different justice, for example, than a Milwaukee court or a Minnesota court, whatever. Every time that happens on something that’s supposed to be uniform, the same input should give the same output. That’s what rule of law should mean

Judicial discretion in many ways is actually often bad because you have things where people start going jurisdiction shopping. Not because the law is different, which is fine, but because the judge likes this or likes that, and has a certain attitude towards this.

It’s like, there’s an apocryphal Israeli study where people get lighter sentences after the judges have eaten something, and their blood sugar is up. So they’re more merciful. That’s bad. Instead you should have this alternative.

Do we want code as law?

I am a blockchain/crypto enthusiast as many of you know. I question the rigidity of code as law though.

Humans don’t actually like perfection.

A perverse question, do we need some flexibility and uncertainty in the judicial system to make it acceptable to our minds. Is the idea that you could get away with something, or get a lighter sentence because the judge is happy that day, a good thing?

It is kind of like the ‘flaw’ in the Matrix. Humans need some level of imperfection and uncertainty.

Can you programme in flexibility or an element of randomness. I think this is what is known as ‘noise’ in AI?

Something to think about as we move ever closer to making code = law :)