Slashdot Mirror
Judge Doesn't Know What a Web Site is
An anonymous reader writes "A British judge admitted on Wednesday he was struggling to cope with basic terms like "Web site" in the trial of three men accused of inciting terrorism via the Internet.
Judge Peter Openshaw broke into the questioning of a witness about a Web forum used by alleged Islamist radicals.
"The trouble is I don't understand the language. I don't really understand what a Web site is". he told a London court during the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws.
Prosecutor Mark Ellison briefly set aside his questioning to explain the terms "Web site" and "forum." An exchange followed in which the 59-year-old judge acknowledged: "I haven't quite grasped the concepts.""
True story:
I once was in a conversation with a highly paid Ivy League-educated lawyer. Somehow (don't ask) the fact that the sun's surface temperature is thousands of degrees came up. The lawyer said, "oh, is that how it stays up, then?" No one knew what she meant. "Well, is that why the sun doesn't fall down, because hot things rise?" she continued. Stunned silence. Then everyone speaking at once about, you know, the copernican view of the universe. The highly paid lawyer was not embarrassed. Instead she asked a lot of questions. They started out stupid, but over the course of 15 minutes of intense questioning she picked
up pretty much everything I knew about solar and planetary astronomy (which is a lot). By the end she was asking really clever questions I couldn't answer.
Lesson I learned: you get to be a highly paid lawyer by being smart, not by knowing anything in particular. And I would happily have her defend me in a trial.
Go easy on him, guys... it's not easy for guys practically in retirement to learn about these new fangled computers. I recently had to teach my father-in-law how to read e-mail. Apparently, he'd already gone through all of his immediate family, who had given up in disgust. Here's literally how the phone-call went:
...
me: Open up your e-mail program and tell me what you see.
him: How do I do that?
me: Click on the start menu, and select the program that has 'mail' in the name.
him: I don't have a start menu.
me: It's on the lower left corner of your screen.
him: Ok, I see it! Now what?
me: Click on it.
him: With what?
me: Your mouse
him: I don't have a mouse
me: It's that white thing on the right with two buttons. Push it around. See the cursor move?
him: I see the mouse, but I don't have a cursor.
me: Yes, you do.
him: No, I don't
me: Yes, you do.
him: Oh! I see it!
me: Now click on the Start button. Do this by dragging the cursor over it, and pressing the left button on the mouse
It took pretty much a whole Saturday afternoon to talk him through it. It was one of the most tiring experiences of my life. The Judge is probably just like him. BTW, my father-in-law is a darned smart dude and well respected doctor. He just hates computers (or at least he did until he learned to use e-mail).
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
My dad is a 70 year old x86 assembler hack, and contributes regularly to the open software community (see http://jdmcox.com/). I write place-and-route algorithms for a living, founded one company, was the key technical lead at one other, and basically feel like a fairly smart SOB. When I come home to dad's house, he humors me when I talk about my programming exploits. I know he feels there is little chance I will ever be a very advanced programmer compared to him. He was a Delta pilot for his entire career, and only started playing with computers when he saw me playing with them in college. Go figure.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
Its things like this that *did* make me go to law school.
I currently work for a judge and he refuses to have a computer in his chambers. Well, ok... there is a computer in his chambers but its unplugged and in the corner, with the screen facing the wall. His secretary prints out his email for him and he dictates his replies onto tape.
The scary thing is that I'm not actually kidding or even exaggerating.
That said, he does have a computer at home and a personal email address that he seems quite capable of using.
You should be careful when you read these kind of stories because judges sometimes "play dumb"; it's called "judicial ignorance".
Remember that any court case might turn out to be important and end up getting cited for years (Salomon v Salomon for example was a case heard in 1896 which is still imporant today). So the judge has to bear in mind that people reading the transcript in hundreds of years time won't have the assumed knowledge that all the rest of us have. When they ask dumb questions like "who are these Rolling Stones?" it may not be that they really don't know, it may be for the sake of making sure the explanation is in the record.
Not that I'm necessarily saying that's what happened in this case.
You're absolutely right.
We've all read some of the overlong slashdot replies/nerd emails that go to great lengths and painstaking detail, dismantling every aspect of the parent poster's point. Usually these posts include specific references to higher authority - textbooks, articles, past examples and other random websites.
Its exactly this combination of arrogance and pedantry that makes a good lawyer. The obsessive need to be absolutely, comprehensively and demonstratably RIGHT and for everyone to know it.
I knew that when I went to law school. Two things did surprise me though:
1. Law nerds have exactly the same sense of humour as computer nerds (pun or other liguistic trick based jokes, Monty Python etc); and
2. It really is exactly the same thought pattern for legal problem solving as it is for software development problem solving.
A misplaced semi-colon or the use of the wrong synonym can be as destructive in a piece of legislation or a 20 page judgment as it can in any piece of code.
You should know better than to equate hacking skill with programming skill.
In turn, you are confusing programming skill with development skill.
But I still write better code than most of those people. Good code is code that is well documented, easy to understand, easy to verify, and easy to maintain.
This is software development as a whole, of which programming is a part.
But he doesn't sound like the kind of person I would ever hire to work on a real system.
No shit? He was a Delta Airlines pilot.
So, don't feel bad. You may not be an "advanced" programmer compared to him, but I bet you write code that is far more consistent, far better documented, and, ultimately, far more useful.
For fcuk's sake, just let the guy talk about his 63 year-old dad!
The difference I have seen is that when gathering constraints, the CS is an optimist and the legal is a pessimist. What I mean is that when there are wholes in a spec/constraints/contract, I, as a designer, assume we'll all just use standards. Lawyers assume someone will use that hole to screw someone else. In design, there is normally an incentive to make it work, not to impede progress. In law, those holes in the constraints can be worth a lot of money.
Joe
Joe Batt Solid Design
I think I remember a teacher saying it can all be broken down to addition; because subtraction is just reverse addition, multiplication is just shorthand addition, and division is shorthand subtraction. There may have been more to the explanation but that was 10 years ago.
> My opinion is that our minds are already geared for the IF definition THEN result,
> EXCEPT WHEN whatever kind of language that most laws that I've read are written in.
Legal and geek language are equally horrible. And if legalese is too difficult,
just translate it to plain ol' English:
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
# "legalese2en.pl" - Converts legalese to proper English - (c)2007 by Jochen L. Leidner
# $Id$
use strict; # stick to the law of the Camel
while (<>) {
s/a large number of/many/g;
s/a number of/some or several or many or something more precise/g;
s/accord/give/g;
s/accord respect to/respect/g;
s/acquire/get/g;
s/additional/more/g;
s/additionally/also/g;
s/adjacent to/next to or near/g;
s/advert to/mention/g;
s/afforded/given/g;
s/aforementioned/often best omitted/g;
s/ambit/reach or scope/g;
s/any and all/all/g;
s/approximately/about/g;
s/ascertain/find out/g;
s/assist/help/g;
s/at present/now/g;
s/at the place/where/g;
s/at the present time/now/g;
s/at this point in time/now or currently or some such/g;
s/at this time/now or currently or some such/g;
s/attempt/try/g;
s/because of the fact that/because/g;
s/cease/stop/g;
s/cease and desist/stop/g;
s/circumstances in which/when or where/g;
s/cognizant of/aware of or knows/g;
s/commence/start/g;
s/conceal/hide/g;
s/concerning the matter of/about/g;
s/consensus of opinion/consensus/g;
s/consequence/result/g;
s/contiguous to/next to/g;
s/demonstrate/show/g;
s/desire/want/g;
s/despite the fact that/despite or though/g;
s/does not operate to/does not/g;
s/donate/give/g;
s/due to the fact that/because/g;
s/during the course of/during/g;
s/during the time that/while/g;
s/echelon/level/g;
s/elucidate/explain or perhaps clarify/g;
s/endeavor/try/g;
s/evince/show/g;
s/excessive number of/too many/g;
s/exclusively/only/g;
s/exit/leave/g;
s/facilitate/help/g;
s/firstly/first/g;
s/secondly/second/g;
s/for the duration of/during or while/g;
s/for the purpose of doing/to do/g;
s/for the reason that/because/g;
s/forthwith/immediately/g;
s/frequently/often/g;
s/fundamental/basic/g;
s/has a negative impact/hurts or harms/g;
s/(I would argue that|it is arguable that|it could be argued