Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law

[HershOstropoler]

"Well, that has been the case far more often here in the U.S. in my lifetime."

Because there was a "liberal" SC. After the reversal of that, you'll be lucky if some of your constitutional rights are still around in 2020. Imagine the rightwing equivalent of Roe v Wade on things like Habeas Corpus...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by 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).

I agree with this statement.
In a perfect world, the spirit of the law would be, perfect.
Since it's not, it's not.

[rah]

The biggest current debate over this issue is the THREE STRIKE LAWS in California. The people being locked away for big time sentences that are only guilty of minor shoplifting charges. I think the USSC is due to review it again. There might be ample discussion material available with a quick search.

RAH
and yes, I think the spirit of the law is the more important of the two, but it's sometimes harder to define, and the target changes over time.

[SlowwHand]

My nephew is doing 50 for habitual. Not shoplifting, but some of the crap was just as stupid.
For instance:
He ripped off a vending machine, someone ripped him off, he reported the incident to police, they arrested him, and he couldn't figure out why, since he had filed the complaint.

Criminals. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[MrBaggins]

The application of the law is the only thing that matters. Without application, neither the spirit nor the letter have any meaning.

[rah]

And that would be a different thread.

[Sava]

Guns are a perfect example. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the availability of what the Founding Fathers knew as arms (18th century muskets). The letter of the law says that all arms would be legal. Most normal people would agree that machine-guns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns should not be available because their sole purpose is to kill lots of people.

My point is not that guns should be banned or not. But rather, we should take a good look at the constitution and update it.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Sava
Guns are a perfect example. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the availability of what the Founding Fathers knew as arms (18th century muskets). The letter of the law says that all arms would be legal. Most normal people would agree that machine-guns, assault rifles, and sub-machine guns should not be available because their sole purpose is to kill lots of people.

My point is not that guns should be banned or not. But rather, we should take a good look at the constitution and update it.

You lose both ways, by the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law as well. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms wasnt put in place to allow people to hunt, that was a given. It allows citizens the rights to protect themselves from a hostile government in contradiction to the British laws that prohibit commoners from having firearms.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The biggest current debate over this issue is the THREE STRIKE LAWS in California. The people being locked away for big time sentences that are only guilty of minor shoplifting charges. I think the USSC is due to review it again. There might be ample discussion material available with a quick search.

They did and they affirmed it. 3 strikes is constitutional.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/05/scotus.three.strikes/index.html

[Japher]

It may help to look in on the origins of the law and to argue that as the spirit of the law. Other interpretations are then only manipulations of the letter of the law when they do not account for the beginnings of the law; which is the spirit.

3 strikes was a retaliation at dive-by shootings, and was therefore a law intended to capture repeat offenders of violent crimes. Yet, because of the letters of the law it came to capture anyone comitting a felony or a mistermeanor, violent or non-violent. IMO, this does not really capture the spirit of the law.

Laywers are artisans trained to manipulate words, and can therefore make the letter of law appear to be whatever they deem. The spirit of the law should be captured, and in a way it is through past interpretations of the letter noted as presidences.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How do we know what the 'spirit' of the law is? People vote on laws for different reasons.

[gunkulator]

You lose both ways, by the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law as well. The 2nd amendment right to bear arms wasnt put in place to allow people to hunt, that was a given. It allows citizens the rights to protect themselves from a hostile government in contradiction to the British laws that prohibit commoners from having firearms

Huh? Reread that ammendment there. The 2nd ammendment is the only one that actually does provide its reasoning right there in the wording. The right to bear arms is necessary to maintain the militia for the security of the state. That's it.

[Japher]

How do we know what the 'spirit' of the law is? People vote on laws for different reasons.

Yes they do. Yet, it should be assumed that people vote for the law based on the platform from which it is launched. I voted for the 3 strikes law beacuse I like baseball... yeah right.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet, it should be assumed that people vote for the law based on the platform from which it is launched.

Why? Someone will vote for a law for a reason totally different than what the sponsor of the bill believes. The only thing that is in common for everyone that voted for the bill is the text.

[Japher]

I am defining the Spirit of the Law as the soul intention behind the law, and I draw that intention from the origions of the law.

This may not be a right way to go about it, but it is just one way to debate it, that's all.

As you argue that someone will vote for a law for different reasons than what was believed by the writter, it is also arguable that someone can enforce the law based on ambigous portions of a law that can be interpreted in different ways based of the text.

Thus, it would be good to define both the letter and the spirit of the law when attempting to use it.

Do you remember the old urban legend of the guy who buys 3 cigars for 2,000 bucks a pop and has them insured for fire? He then smokes them and attempts to collect, and get slapped with 3 accounts of arson and insurance fraud. I think the spirit and the letter of laws were just as confused here as were the intentions for insurance.

If I still a bag of golf clubs, as the man in article, am I hit with 18 counts of theft or just one? What if I still a single pair of pants? Is this two accounts or one, since it is a "pair of pants"? How about a ring with three stoned? You see where I am going?