Supreme Court to deliberate on the ambiguity of 'And' in criminal sentencing law
WASHINGTON (AP) - It's hard to imagine a less contentious or more innocent word than "and."
But how to interpret that simple conjunction has prompted a complicated legal fight that lands in the Supreme Court on Oct. 2, the first day of its new term. What the justices decide could affect thousands of prison sentences each year.
You could simply have clicked two times and been at the text of the law, the very convoluted and badly written law.
It seems to me that they intended to write a list that said this doesn't apply if Condition 1 and Condition 2 and Condition 3, except they only used 'and' between 2 and 3, which seems to change the meaning to Condition 1 and 3 OR Condition 2 and 3.
That is what I was looking for, but they do this all the time, he said a racist remark....no remark, said something offensive, no offensive remark posted., etc, etc
Nowhere in the article is the statute described, which is frustrating.
Here's an article that does get into the issue: https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-pulsifer-v-united-states-22 340/#:~:text=This%20case%20involves%2018%20U.S.C.,impose%20a%20mandatory-minimum%20sentence.
I have always thought that Accident And Emergency should be Accident Or Emergency. Otherwise - Emergency Service coordinator. "You say you are suffering a heart attack. Did this result from an accident? No? Well, we cannot help. " Click.
Words mean things. "And" does not mean "or". The relevant text of the law:
"A defendant meets (f)(1) if he “does not have—(A) more than 4 criminal history points . . .; (B) a prior 3-point offense . . .; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense.” 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1)"
If the Congress wants any of they three to apply then they need to go back and change the text of the law. When we let lawyers weasel word our laws, then we have a system of men, not laws. (yeah, yeah, I know I know. But I am still a Traditional American.)
The legal rigamorale over the word 'and' is not new. It has gone on for decades. In the early 1990s, there was some negotiation before a contract was signed. Insertion of 'and' in one clause changed the scope of the entire contract. The business owned by my friend would not accept the contract unless that one word was omitted. The other side remained adamant. The entire process fell apart, the contract was not signed. This caused a delay in the project. The delay incurred financial penalties. The bank threatened to stop funding.
All because of last minute insertion of 'and' in one clause of a multi-page contract.
I suppose SCOTUS only now takes up the cause because something about this particular case brings a novel legal tactic. In other words, this shit has gotten so far out of hand that the chief authority has to knock heads together.
Sorry to be a geek, but here I go anyway. The text of the law is a formal argument and is amenable to formal rules of logic, succinctly stated in boolean algebra. I was a computer programmer for 45 years and analysis of complex English was once my forte.
First, a statement like (a, b AND c) only makes English sense as (a AND b AND c). The law is worded as NOT (a, b, AND c) which would expand to NOT (a AND b AND c). When you distribute NOT over a logical expression, it has an artifact of changes AND to OR and OR to AND. Therefore, the proper logical interpretation of the expression is ((NOT a) OR (NOT b) OR (NOT c)).
Quod erat demonstrandum. Of course, the real question is whether the drafters of the law were sufficiently cognizant of the subtleties of rhetoric and the implications of their verbiage.
See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3109758/is-a-and-b-same-as-a-or-b-how-is-the-negation-distributed-inside-bracket for lucidity.
As a former programmer, I appreciate this post. I learned long long ago to not bother trying to explain to an "outsider" the difference between AND and OR. And with somewhat of a mathematics background, it drives me up the wall when people don't grasp order of operations.
I too appreciate the comment. I haven't been a computer programmer, but I am an eduring student of the english language. Errors typically the result of ignorance, yet it seems ever more that ignorance becomes a virtue. Given the way the electorate select their lawmakers, why should anyone be surprised by the convolution in the body of text of bills. Even the admendments to the purpose for clarification often further muddy the waters, so to speak.
My schooling was in hard science. Nigh every of my professors propounded English as a minor degree. Yet politicians, and those in other positions of authority are often prized for less relavant qualities.
In Canada at least, a lot of court rulings are published in a central place for the whole world to see. I like to skim through them once in a while looking for names I know (I spent a lot of time hanging out with drug dealer types some years back) and sometimes they can be funny to read.
But a lot of the time they can be 50 literal paragraphs droning on over legal minutiae and it's the most mind numbingly boring thing.
Gee it would be awfully nice if they actually put the language in the article...
ReplyDeleteYou could simply have clicked two times and been at the text of the law, the very convoluted and badly written law.
DeleteIt seems to me that they intended to write a list that said this doesn't apply if Condition 1 and Condition 2 and Condition 3, except they only used 'and' between 2 and 3, which seems to change the meaning to Condition 1 and 3 OR Condition 2 and 3.
That is what I was looking for, but they do this all the time, he said a racist remark....no remark, said something offensive, no offensive remark posted., etc, etc
DeleteNowhere in the article is the statute described, which is frustrating.
ReplyDeleteHere's an article that does get into the issue:
https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-pulsifer-v-united-states-22 340/#:~:text=This%20case%20involves%2018%20U.S.C.,impose%20a%20mandatory-minimum%20sentence.
I have always thought that Accident And Emergency should be Accident Or Emergency.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise -
Emergency Service coordinator. "You say you are suffering a heart attack. Did this result from an accident? No?
Well, we cannot help. " Click.
Ok not something I have ever thought about
ReplyDeleteWords mean things. "And" does not mean "or". The relevant text of the law:
ReplyDelete"A defendant meets (f)(1) if he “does not have—(A) more than 4 criminal history points . . .; (B) a prior 3-point offense . . .; and (C) a prior 2-point violent offense.” 18 U.S.C. §3553(f)(1)"
If the Congress wants any of they three to apply then they need to go back and change the text of the law. When we let lawyers weasel word our laws, then we have a system of men, not laws. (yeah, yeah, I know I know. But I am still a Traditional American.)
Why have they started trying to define "and" when they still haven't defined "is"?
ReplyDeleteThat is an easy one. The term "And" is clearly defined Boolean algebra.
ReplyDeleteBoolean logic, I'll bet the justices never imagined that.
ReplyDeleteThe legal rigamorale over the word 'and' is not new. It has gone on for decades. In the early 1990s, there was some negotiation before a contract was signed. Insertion of 'and' in one clause changed the scope of the entire contract. The business owned by my friend would not accept the contract unless that one word was omitted. The other side remained adamant. The entire process fell apart, the contract was not signed. This caused a delay in the project. The delay incurred financial penalties. The bank threatened to stop funding.
ReplyDeleteAll because of last minute insertion of 'and' in one clause of a multi-page contract.
I suppose SCOTUS only now takes up the cause because something about this particular case brings a novel legal tactic. In other words, this shit has gotten so far out of hand that the chief authority has to knock heads together.
Sorry to be a geek, but here I go anyway. The text of the law is a formal argument and is amenable to formal rules of logic, succinctly stated in boolean algebra. I was a computer programmer for 45 years and analysis of complex English was once my forte.
ReplyDeleteFirst, a statement like (a, b AND c) only makes English sense as (a AND b AND c). The law is worded as NOT (a, b, AND c) which would expand to NOT (a AND b AND c). When you distribute NOT over a logical expression, it has an artifact of changes AND to OR and OR to AND. Therefore, the proper logical interpretation of the expression is ((NOT a) OR (NOT b) OR (NOT c)).
Quod erat demonstrandum. Of course, the real question is whether the drafters of the law were sufficiently cognizant of the subtleties of rhetoric and the implications of their verbiage.
See https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3109758/is-a-and-b-same-as-a-or-b-how-is-the-negation-distributed-inside-bracket for lucidity.
As a former programmer, I appreciate this post. I learned long long ago to not bother trying to explain to an "outsider" the difference between AND and OR. And with somewhat of a mathematics background, it drives me up the wall when people don't grasp order of operations.
DeleteI too appreciate the comment. I haven't been a computer programmer, but I am an eduring student of the english language. Errors typically the result of ignorance, yet it seems ever more that ignorance becomes a virtue.
DeleteGiven the way the electorate select their lawmakers, why should anyone be surprised by the convolution in the body of text of bills. Even the admendments to the purpose for clarification often further muddy the waters, so to speak.
My schooling was in hard science. Nigh every of my professors propounded English as a minor degree. Yet politicians, and those in other positions of authority are often prized for less relavant qualities.
This pretty much sums up why I'm not a lawyer.
ReplyDeleteIn Canada at least, a lot of court rulings are published in a central place for the whole world to see. I like to skim through them once in a while looking for names I know (I spent a lot of time hanging out with drug dealer types some years back) and sometimes they can be funny to read.
But a lot of the time they can be 50 literal paragraphs droning on over legal minutiae and it's the most mind numbingly boring thing.