Fewer Rules, Better People

Wherever there’s a rule, there is someone with the power to apply or ignore it—or add to it, in the interest of justice. From enforcing chores to issuing life sentences, decision-makers deliver flawed and sometimes arbitrary outcomes. But is their use of discretion good or bad overall? As a society, should we seek to minimise or maximise discretion, with all its potential for bias and other kinds of human error? Reframing our understanding of justice and ethics, Barry Lam argues that while use of discretion can never be perfect, removing it has more problematic effects. Mandatory arrests and sentencing laws do not eliminate bias but corrupt the courtroom, institutionalise lying and bring about unjust and arbitrary results. Fewer Rules, Better People sheds new light on political debates about law and justice while preparing us for the imminent threat of discretion-less rule-enforcement by AI. A Norton Short

Wherever there’s a rule, there is someone with the power to apply or ignore it—or add to it, in the interest of justice. From enforcing chores to issuing life sentences, decision-makers deliver flawed and sometimes arbitrary outcomes. But is their use of discretion good or bad overall? As a society, should we seek to minimise or maximise discretion, with all its potential for bias and other kinds of human error? Reframing our understanding of justice and ethics, Barry Lam argues that while use of discretion can never be perfect, removing it has more problematic effects. Mandatory arrests and sentencing laws do not eliminate bias but corrupt the courtroom, institutionalise lying and bring about unjust and arbitrary results. Fewer Rules, Better People sheds new light on political debates about law and justice while preparing us for the imminent threat of discretion-less rule-enforcement by AI. A Norton Short