Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law

[Apocalypse]

I've got a debate thing tomorrow on this and I've really had too many other things on my mind so I've really been slacking off. I didn't even know what the topic was until yesterday.

Anyway, if any of you know any good and/or unique arguements on this topic it would help me out somewhat.

[korn469]

spirit of the law:
terrorism laws passed to make sure a 9/11 never happens again

letter of the law:
crazy kid makes threats against columbine on the internet and he is arrested because of the terrorist laws

[Berzerker]

The spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law. I'll give an example why -

The 3rd Amendment prohibits housing troops in our homes during peacetime. This amendment has it's origin in the King's practice of placing troops in the homes of suspected dissidents to spy on them. Modern technology now allows the state to spy on us without placing troops in our homes. The spirit of the law is being violated even if the letter of the law remains intact...

[loinburger]

The letter of the law is more important insofar as it's too easy for somebody to reinterpret the spirit of the law to suit their purposes, whereas the letter of the law can't be changed without going through the process of officially changing the law.

[JCG]

The spirit of the law may be more important, but it's usually harder to get concensus around it...very open to interpretation (even more than the letter of the law could be).

[Berzerker]

If the spirit of the law is violated, appeals will take care of it, but not when the letter of the law is screwed up. Case in point, an 18 year old in Minnesota was convicted of statutory rape and got a child molestor label for life for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. What was the letter of the law? Adults can't have sex with minors. What was the spirit of the law? Punishing child molestors. Even the idiot politician in Minnesota said he didn't mean for it to apply in cases like that.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If the spirit of the law is violated, appeals will take care of it, but not when the letter of the law is screwed up. Case in point, an 18 year old in Minnesota was convicted of statutory rape and got a child molestor label for life for having sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. What was the letter of the law? Adults can't have sex with minors. What was the spirit of the law? Punishing child molestors. Even the idiot politician in Minnesota said he didn't mean for it to apply in cases like that.

This is the definitive example. It's the spirit of the law. This is why we have such a lengthy appeals process...not to get to the letter of the law, but to determine its true spirit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The letter of the law is more important because it is through that which all else springs. The 'spirit' gets reinterpreted with every generation to be almost meaningless. At least with the letter of the law there are some things you just simply can't get around.

[HershOstropoler]

The letter of the law is always ambiguous. Within the possible meanings, the spirit and purpose of the law, its historical origins, and its systematic position can and should be used to determine a meaning.

Some argue for the spirit etc to override the letter, but in the end, that makes written law meaningless, and nobody can determine what the law actually requires him to do/not to do.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The letter of the law is always ambiguous. Within the possible meanings, the spirit and purpose of the law, its historical origins, and its systematic position can and should be used to determine a meaning.

Some argue for the spirit etc to override the letter, but in the end, that makes written law meaningless, and nobody can determine what the law actually requires him to do/not to do.

I agree. I never figured you for a righty Hersh!

[HershOstropoler]

That's not a matter of left or right, as the SC construction in Bush v Gore is almost as absurd as the one in Roe v Wade. And Carl Schmitt with his huffy-puffy inventions was barely a leftist.

More a matter of legal doctrine, and there I'm just happily with the Vienna School.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
That's not a matter of left or right, as the SC construction in Bush v Gore is almost as absurd as the one in Roe v Wade. And Carl Schmitt with his huffy-puffy inventions was barely a leftist.

More a matter of legal doctrine, and there I'm just happily with the Vienna School.

I was just teasing you, there are always people willing to sacrifice the work of generations in order to make their short term goals more easily attainable, and they know no single political type.

[HershOstropoler]

I know. It's just funny to see the rightists whine about leftists twisting the law.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
I know. It's just funny to see the rightists whine about leftists twisting the law.

Well, that has been the case far more often here in the U.S. in my lifetime. The good thing to come from this is that the right is somewhat sensitive to this issue, as they complain about it so often.

[Zylka]

Edited by Ming...

Zylka... one more post like that and you are toast... sigh...