Discuss the letter of the law vs the intent of the law. I believe that too much emphasis is put on the letter of the law and that people get caught up in it, missing the intent of why a law was written and, in some cases, lawyering it to go against what was originally intended.
i agree. But they aren't and usually filled with loop-holes. If one needs loop-holes to get around the law, then the intent is off and the law is then, ineffective.
The law is as the law is written. "Intent" is endlessly debatable, even among the people who crafted the law; clearly written words are not.
Even the written law is debatable because the English language, the spoken/written language, is open to interpretation. It is ambiguous to begin with. Ambiguity leads to ambiguity. With an understanding of intent, less words need to be used.
"Intent" is what the law was supposed to be. "Letter" is what the law is. You can only enforce what the law is, not what it was supposed to be. That's the nature of a legal system with written laws. Nevertheless, just as there is ambiguity in what the law was supposed to be, there is also ambiguity in what it is. Context helps to seriously reduce ambiguity (a fundamental principle of semantics), and to the extent that intent is known, that helps to understand the context in order to reduce the ambiguity of what is actually written. But if a law is poorly written, the intention cannot change what is actually written down. IOW, there are strict limits to how far intent can be used to help define the meaning of what is written.
Here's an example of a poorly written law with a huge loophole I exploited. In The Army one of my soldiers got into trouble, and one of the additional charges to his offence (long story) was being out after curfew. The law said that you have to be back on post by midnight. GAPING HOLE: There was no "curfew ends" time. In other words the law did not state "from midnight to 6:00 AM" or any such parameters. So what would stop me from getting back on post at 11:50 PM and going back out at 2:00 AM? I was indeed on post by midnight. Of course the military higher ups tried to give me the "well, it's IMPLIED that you stay on post until a reasonable hour." The INTENT was to keep people off the streets when the bars close and drunks + robbers roam the streets. And what about shift workers? One of my buds rented an apartment ABOVE A BAR in the red-light district! So he can't leave his Air Traffic Control position and go home and sleep like everyone else in the unit? So, they had to drop that charge, and as a result the Army head honchos officially changed the wording to put an exact set limit on the curfew, and address shift workers who lived off post.
Yes, but since they're written by lawyers and politicians, some of the most moronic people on Earth, what do you expect?
Exactly. Sometimes the best thing you can do when writing is to take a step back and put yourself in the readers' shoes. Sure, you (reading your own work) know what you're trying to say. But imagine you didn't know - would your intended audience get a clear picture/try to "sharpshoot" it for content or loopholes? Does Wayne Brady need to choke a bitch?
Also wise advice for web page programmers. Sure, YOU know how to navigate the page, but what about someone who has never been there?
The best laws can only be written to cover the generalities of the majority of cases. No law can consider all possible contingencies.
I've filled out job applications where the employer tries to cover those. They use these open ended statements. Something like, "And any other duties as asked by the manager." To me, that is unacceptable. Because, by the letter, If he asks me to do something way outside what I was hired for, it now falls with in this "job description". There was a Safety topic once that we all had to sign off on with one of those open-ended statements in it. I refused to sign it. Sure it protects the employer, but it does not protect the employee.
And you didn't get fired? Huh. That's either a generous employer, or a litigation-conscious one. Because there's one of the material differences between government and private enterprise: If your boss had fired you, you could have taken him to court. The "tear up all the laws" mindset would leave you SOL.
HA! That's the military catch-all. It can mean buffing floors, riding around with Koreans collecting the money from slot-machines, washing jets, etc. etc.
And the double standard on that, which people like you are all too ready to indulge, is that government is immune from accountability when they do things that would get private entities blown out of the water.
