

Should laws have built-in expiration dates by default? - carpdiem
http://www.intellectualpornography.com/2010/03/one-oclock-daily-the-case-for-a-forgetful-legal-system.html

======
derefr
What will happen when a law expires? The easiest thing to do—the thing that
takes the least thinking, writing and arguing—would be to simply re-instate
it. This means that this system, when the principles of efficiency are
inevitably applied to it, will actually _encourage_ the permanence of silly
laws—laws will simply be made as monolithic as possible, so they only have to
re-instate one thing, that everyone can pretend they read already.

Now, instead, imagine a boundary on the _space_ the law may take up. If set
near (or below!) the current size of the law, this would encourage something
lawmakers never, ever currently do for its own sake: refactoring. It would
also encourage clarity, strict and manifold definition of terms (to allow
later reuse), and many other strange and exciting (though not necessarily
ethically sound) ideas.

~~~
mseebach
> What will happen when a law expires? The easiest thing to do—the thing that
> takes the least thinking, writing and arguing—would be to simply re-instate
> it.

Almost. But they will be read first, followed by a "reinstate" or "let expire"
decision. If it's a bad or unnecessary law, this will cost political capital,
which favours the "let expire" option.

Then there'll be committee hearings, where citizens affected by the law will
get a say, and since the text is open anyway, motions for amendments can be
presented.

And finally, it has to actually pass parliament, making the current parliament
answerable for the passage, rather than a past one. It's a lot easier to say
"yes, I agree that law is not the best, but I have prioritised other issues
over fixing it" than "I voted for it, when I had the option of simply pushing
the other button."

> Now, instead, imagine a boundary on the space the law may take up.

That sounds like a good idea. No text longer than 2000 words can be passed by
a single vote.

~~~
ratsbane
I've thought for a long time that we should have a cap on the size of the body
of law - say, 250,000 words. This would accomplish sunset indirectly. If
someone wants to pass a new law and the body of law is already at the limit
they'd have to push for something to be repealed first.

As a downside, though, this might lead to obfuscated and confusing laws as
legislators try to fit as many ideas as possible into few words, rather like
code with lots of three-way operators.

As we're all subject to all of the laws on the books, even though no one could
possibly read or understand all of them, this would be a much more fair
solution.

The Icelandic example has, in effect, a similar cap. There can be no more laws
than the law-speaker can remember. Capping the size of the body of law would
be more like the Icelandic example than sunset provisions. Also you wouldn't
have to worry about important laws, e.g. murder, from expiring because no one
noticed.

[edit - moved from top-level comment to this thread]

~~~
sethg
I don’t see how this could work. In a society with a developing technology and
economy, new situations come up (e.g., how to allocate spectrum for these cool
new cellular telephone thingies) where one could reasonably argue that new
government regulations are called for, and old laws are unlikely to become
obsolete at the same rate.

So either the total number of words of The Law goes up _or_ some body of
executive-branch regulation grows to have the same effect _or_ (as you pointed
out) courts read complicated legal doctrines into terse legislative text _or_
the law is so ambiguous that citizens have no way to predict how a court will
rule.

Of all these alternatives I think the first is the least bad.

~~~
ratsbane
I'm not sure how it would work either or if it would. As new technology
develops old technologies also become obsolete - thus as we have more laws
dealing with biotech and airplanes, we can get rid of laws dealing with
leprosy and stagecoaches. More importantly this might force legislators to
write their code more efficiently and address the intent of the participants.

You do make some good points about limiting the total size of the legal code
but NOT limiting the size of the legal code, as we do now, also has some
serious drawbacks.

------
tophercyll
Consider a bicameral legislature where newly elected representatives serve a
four year term in the lower body. Their sole responsibility is the
review/renewal of existing laws. Every law must be renewed every four years.

After completing their term in the lower body, the representatives graduate to
serve a four year term the higher house. Here, they are entrusted with the
power of making new laws.

Elections are staggered (similar to the US sentate), so every year one fourth
of the members are elected, one fourth move up, and one fourth retire. This
way, the chambers have institutional memory and transitions are smooth.

Both houses have the power to change the legislative topography of the nation.
Because newly elected representatives serve in the lower house, when citizens
vote to change the direction of the country, the first response to public
opinion is the removal of existing laws. Only after serving a term in the
lower house can laws be added.

To make this kind of system successful, there might need to be a legal review
process that demands small, unbundled laws. Or perhaps a simple word count
like @derefr and @mseebach suggest.

I guess the fact that we even think about this stuff pretty much means we're
geeks. =)

~~~
stcredzero
As it stands, the State of California has a bureau that uses software to
ensure new laws do not conflict with existing ones.

~~~
igurari
Do you have a little more information about that? I'm curious to know how the
software would do that, and how sophisticated it is. I would imagine it is
simply based on user input representations of the bills, and fairly simple
tests, but even that would be difficult to do accurately/effectively.

~~~
stcredzero
I was involved in a software project there in the late 90's. Their software
back then seemed to just consist of a search engine on the text of the bills.
There may have been other tools I didn't know about. My project there was
fairly limited.

My (probably incomplete or incorrect) understanding was that they would vet a
new law by doing keyword searches concerning the main points of the new law.
So if a there was a new law about people's lawns, they'd search for "lawn" and
whatever other keywords or synonyms would occur to them.

~~~
igurari
Thanks. Makes sense. I was curious because I've spent much time developing
quality case parsing and semantic analysis technologies, and one of the very
difficult problems I've been interested in - but not yet approached - is
automatically parsing and analyzing legislation. I think there is much headway
that will be made there in the coming years/decade, but it's a tricky problem.

------
mrclark411
Built in expirations do exist, they just are not required:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision>

------
anigbrowl
I think so...in principle. But imagine how this would work in our partisan
legislature - I'm sure you can think of equally awful possibilities regardless
of your individual political affiliation. While some bad laws would die a
suitable death, some good ones would be made into political footballs as well.

And it would create havoc in the courts. Recall that the Icelanders settled
most of their disputes via blood feuds and something like weregeld. Doing that
in the modern age would result in many arguments about retroactive punishment
and/or restitution for people convicted under expired laws. you might be found
guilty, punished, declared innocent, compensated, and then declared guilty
after all and owing the money back.

~~~
pmccool
Are retrospective criminal laws even allowed in the US? They're generally
considered dicey from a human-rights point of view.

~~~
thwarted
<http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec9>

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

<http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#EXPOST>

"ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively."

This is, however, a limit on Congress.

~~~
derefr
So, if someone invents a whole new kind of evil—say, simulating a universe
composed purely of vingtillions of minds being tortured—they go free, even
after a law is purpose-made to stop them—but the next guy to do it gets the
wrap?

~~~
mseebach
> say, simulating a universe composed purely of vingtillions of minds being
> tortured

No, you can't outlaw The Sims retroactively.

~~~
stcredzero
Being tortured by being trapped in the pool and/or in houses without toilets?

~~~
mseebach
Stuff like that. Inflicting slow and painful death for amusement.

Frankly, I didn't completely follow derefr's post .. Did he really suggest
that there could be a need for laws to govern what happens to simulated minds?

~~~
thwarted
Read the book Altered Carbon. People can switch bodies and their minds can be
run in simulation and there are laws about running someone's mind in
simulation just for the puroses of torture.

~~~
mseebach
That's all very interesting, but the "fiction" part of "science fiction" is
there for a reason.

And by the way, if you're somehow successful in removing my mind from my body
and torturing it in a computer, current laws would apply just fine.

~~~
anigbrowl
Unlike fantasy, the fictional aspect of SF is not permanent. Yesterday's
personal communicator is today's smartphone.

Artificial intelligences with distinct personalities are not here yet, but I
see no fundamental bounds to their creation and am pretty optimistic about the
timeframe. The question of whether such intelligences qualify as people will
become a pressing one at that time, even if it seems abstract to you now.

------
bricestacey
As a counter example, I present Florida. Florida is a no-fault driving state.
A couple years ago, the law that decided this expired for about a month before
it was renewed into law again. This sort of last minute law wrangling is a
mess and requires millions of people reconsider their insurance temporarily.
It's a "great idea," but it's terrible in practice.

~~~
mseebach
That's just incompetence. I'm not sure making it easier for politicians to be
incompetent is a good idea.

Also, if all laws expire automatically, the working rhythm of the legislative
body would change to accommodate this. After all, stuff like passing budgets,
which is time sensitive, tend to happen in time.

~~~
anigbrowl
_stuff like passing budgets, which is time sensitive, tend to happen in time._

I'm guessing you don't live in the state of California, where the opposite is
true.

------
sethg
I’m a little worried about this opening up new opportunities for political
brinksmanship. “If the Majority Leader wants my vote to renew the law against
dumping toxic waste into the harbor, he’d better let me get my way on the farm
bill.”

------
gommm
Anyone knows where that law comes from? "A person may not walk around on
Sundays with an ice cream cone in his/her pocket." It makes me kind of curious

~~~
cromulent
No, but there are quite a few strange old laws still around.

For example, if a Welshman crosses the border on a Friday with goods for
market, you can kill him.

<http://web.mac.com/jdewynne/OldAquarium/MISC/welsh.html>

"In Shrewsbury in 1776, seven Welshmen were killed, three by musket, three by
sword and one was bludgeoned to death with his own crops. The Borders Act has
never been repealed."

~~~
tjic
My favorite crazy law is that in Massachusetts it is illegal to display an
artificially created albino person.

<http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/272-33.htm>

~~~
stcredzero
In many states, there are laws along the lines of: 5 or more unmarried women
living under the same roof constitutes a brothel. Hence, most colleges are
running brothels.

~~~
sethg
IIRC Boston recently passed an ordinance forbidding landlords to rent a unit
to (IIRC) groups of more than 4 unmarried persons living together. The intent
was to deal with absentee landlords who rented houses to large groups of
students, since (a) the students, as a rule, could outbid working families
interested in the same kinds of housing; (b) there have been a number of
problems with students being bad neighbors (drunken late-night parties, and so
on).

Since Massachusetts has same-sex marriage, I suppose that six Boston College
students looking to crowd themselves into a three-bedroom house _could_ take a
short trip to City Hall and present themselves to landlords as three married
couples....

------
mistermann
Yes, of course they should, but this will be exactly as meaningless as the
other tools in your "democracy" toolkit.

I see what you're getting at, but you are waaaaay late to the party.....the
democracy thing has already been figured out.

But, it's always good to hear from citizens. The government likes people to
feel they have a voice in the way their country is run!

------
pmccool
I'm extremely dubious about the claim that it's harder to repeal old laws than
to create new ones. Why would this be the case?

The big problem I see is that it makes it harder to know what the law says at
any given time; that's an inevitable result of more change. Change isn't
necessarily bad, but in this case, change for change's sake undoubtedly is.

~~~
anamax
> The big problem I see is that it makes it harder to know what the law says
> at any given time;

It's already the case that no one knows "what the law says at any given time".

> Change isn't necessarily bad, but in this case, change for change's sake
> undoubtedly is.

It's not change for change's sake. It's change to get rid of laws that aren't
worth renewing. Since laws are, by definition, threat or imposition of force,
they should be somewhat valuable.

I'd argue that simple renewal isn't enough, that renewal should require more
effort/votes than the original passage. After all, renewal comes after
experience. If a law actually works, it will have more support with
experience.

Note that expiration also makes it reasonable to try more experiments because
you can reasonably say "hey, if it doesn't work, we're not stuck with it".
With "stay until explicit repeal", it's a lot more work to undo mistakes.
(Note that almost all laws have benefiaries, and those folks fight tooth and
nail against repeal to keep their benefits.)

~~~
pmccool
> It's already the case that no one knows "what the law > says at any given
> time".

So nobody knows, for example, the road rules in their local area at any given
time? That's my point: it's incumbent on people to know _some_ laws. The more
stable these laws are, the easier it is to know what they say. This
proposition makes them less stable.

> It's not change for change's sake. It's change to get rid > of laws that
> aren't worth renewing. Since laws are, by > definition, threat or imposition
> of force, they should be > somewhat valuable.

So repeal bad laws. That sounds like a better idea than presuming that all
laws are bad and repealing them automatically.

~~~
anamax
> nobody knows, for example, the road rules in their local area at any given
> time?

Actually, they don't. Almost every vehicle, including those fresh off the lot,
will fail an inspection by someone who wants to find a problem.

> The more stable these laws are, the easier it is to know what they say. This
> proposition makes them less stable.

You're assuming that this change will significantly affect people's ability to
know the law. It doesn't - they're already ignorant AND the law mutates enough
as it is.

> So repeal bad laws.

It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy
from WWI.

> That sounds like a better idea than presuming that all laws are bad and
> repealing them automatically.

I'm not presuming that all laws are bad. I'm proposing a mechanism for getting
rid of bad and obsolete laws that has some chance of actually working.

We don't elect legislators for life, so why should the default for laws be
"forever"?

~~~
pmccool
> It's almost impossible to repeal things. The US still has a mohair subsidy
> from WWI.

This is what I don't get; why? I get that laws aren't repealed as often as
they should be. My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will.
I'm not from the US, I don't know that much about the political system. I
imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as
making one. Is this assumption wrong?

~~~
anamax
> I imagined that repealing a law would be a matter of passing a bill, same as
> making one. Is this assumption wrong?

That's correct.

> This is what I don't get; why

Why doesn't matter. What matters is whether it's true, because it's silly to
act as if things are different, and what you're going to do about it.

> My personal suspicion is that it's a lack of political will.

Laws have beneficiaries. For example, someone is collecting that mohair
subsidy. Those folks are quite motivated to keep things the way they are. The
folks who would benefit from killing ths subsidy are diffuse - they don't even
know that they're paying it.

Plus, legislators get rewarded for doing "new" things, not for fixing old ones
that no one remembers.

That's why my "must be renewed every so often" proposal requires more and more
effort to pass each time (approaching some limit). The longer that something
has been around, the more popular it should be if it's actually worthwhile.

~~~
anamax
Argh - too late to edit for clarity.

The assumption is correct - the mechanism for repealing a law is just like the
mechanism for making a law.

