07-03-2003 07:10									#1
	Letter of the Law versus Spirit of the Law Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	07-03-2003 07:19									#2
	Remove this text

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

	07-03-2003 07:27									#3
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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...

	07-03-2003 07:42									#4
	Get a bigger avatar today!

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.

	07-03-2003 10:03									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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).

	07-03-2003 10:22									#6
	Support Apolyton

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.

	07-03-2003 11:28									#7
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 11:33									#8
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	07-03-2003 13:33									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	07-03-2003 13:52									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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!

	07-03-2003 14:25									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

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.

	07-03-2003 15:05									#12
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 15:08									#13
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	07-03-2003 15:12									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 15:39									#15
	Suffering from ads?

Edited by Ming...

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

Last edited by Ming on 07-03-2003 at 20:31

	07-03-2003 15:59									#16
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

"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...

	07-03-2003 19:27									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 21:15									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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.

	07-03-2003 21:35									#19
	Put an end to popups!

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.

	07-03-2003 21:45									#20
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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

	07-03-2003 21:48									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

And that would be a different thread.

	07-03-2003 22:22									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	07-03-2003 22:54									#23
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 23:11									#24
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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/s...ikes/index.html

	07-03-2003 23:26									#25
	Suffering from ads?

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.

	07-03-2003 23:29									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

	07-03-2003 23:31									#27
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 23:34									#28
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 23:35									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: 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.

	07-03-2003 23:43									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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?