Abstract
This paper argues that data-driven interpretation creates a “Mechanical Turk” jurisprudence: a jurisprudence that appears mechanical but in fact is thoroughly human. Its contribution to the literature is twofold. First, it articulates an intellectual history of data-driven interpretation: data-driven tools have been adopted because society associates quantification with a mechanical objectivity and because objectivity is at the center of debates over statutory interpretation. Second, it criticizes surveys as an interpretative tool: in addition to a host of practical execution problems, surveys misunderstand the concept of “ordinary meaning” and threaten to undermine the value of faithful agency.
Recommended Citation
Shlomo Klapper,
Mechanical Turk Jurisprudence,
86 Brook. L. Rev.
291
(2021).
Available at:
https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol86/iss2/1
Included in
Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Psychology Commons, Law and Society Commons, Science and Technology Law Commons