The letter of the law

Post Reply New Topic

When there are laws, or rules, to be followed, is it possible to follow both the letter of the law and the intent of the law? Is it possible to follow the intent of the law without following the letter of the law? Is it, more classically, possible to follow the letter of the law without following the intent of the law?

Yes to all three questions.

Done.

Uh... I suppose you're right. The question was too simple then. Which is better hierarchically: letter - intent, letter + intent, intent - letter?

None of the above matter.

Next question.

Next question, why do you think that none of the above matter?

Well, past interpretations of that law are more important than the actual literal words, and more important than the intent of authors. Laws are really most important in what they do for us. The best formal interpretation, or the best interpretation of past intent thus are not as relevant, so much as continuity with legal practice(for purposes of stability) and forward looking interpretations of the meaning of this law.

I have one, why he wasn't supposed to save the dinosaurs?

Because he's Alan Grant and not Nick van Owen.

If you want to know more about following the letter of the law without the intent, look up gun control- especially in California.

The problem is the immorality of society.

When a law is crafted in one era, the makers of the law PRESUME that the social morals will not change. The intent of their words is almost idiot-proof.

As time passes, attitudes change. People who don't like the law will start looking for ways to twist what it means by redefining the words it uses. Rather than just push to repeal the law (which is the just and moral way to deal with a law you do not like), they try to distort the historical meaning and purpose by arguing the words mean something different today or that it's very function should be redefined. When this happens, the deciders of law much look to whatever evidence exists to illustrate the INTENT of those who crafted the law to better determine whose argument is valid and whose is not.

Some laws incorporate "purpose" sub-chapters which define the goal of the legislation to memorialize it for future generations in an effort to avoid this debate down the road. Of course, it doesn't always work. I was a case manager for a welfare program, and while the plain objective of the program was to get people on welfare off of welfare by job skill training and interview assistance, the sad reality is that about half of the regulations governing how the program worked inherently worked AGAINST the plain objective codified in the act itself. Then you can add in the public policy factors which inherently led to abuse of the program rather than help it be effective.

The letter of the law seeks to codify the spirit of the law. The effectiveness of such is problematic at best. A wise judge tries to resolve issues by interpreting matters of law so that it harmonizes not only with the letter of the law but with the documented intend behind the crafting of the letter of the law.

The American and Canadian experiences are, I think, a little different--particularly on the issue of legislative history. So, my commentary may not be entirely relevant.

The starting point for interpretation is always the four corners of the document, and the plain meaning of the words that the legislature used to express its intention. But where that plain meaning is open to ambiguity, or leads to contradiction, then other interpretation rules must come into play.

Statutory interpretation is not a simple study, nor is it an exact science. Given the rule that, "the legislature is always speaking," and the requirement for statute to continue to govern in circumstances that the legislature either did not or could not have considered at the time of enactment of the statute, it follows that, "the letter of the law," is an ideal which the law cannot always encompass.

The purpose of "law" is to bring about "justice".

A judge with the wisdom of Solomon could give just and fair verdicts without law.

What about stability? How do you have stability with a Solomon giving random verdicts left and right? Who is even wise enough to predict what Solomon would do?

And so we have "rules".

If you ran a business you would hope that people would be smart enough to do the right thing but because you know they won't, you make rules.

Say you have guards at the front desk of your building. You have told them not to open the front door unless people have a proper security pass.

Up comes the fire department. "Let us in. The building is on fire!"

The guard says "I'm sorry. You must apply to head office for a pass and to make an appointment"

Well, actually, my basic point is really that we need rules for coordination, not that people just aren't wise.

I mean, Wombat, if I got down more substantively, I am not sure there is this "right thing" out there in space, but rather it all depends upon context to a degree where talking about a "right thing" without noticing issues of culture, and pre-existing order would be meaningless. In fact, I would even go so far as to say that unless previous orders existed(norms, which to some extent stand outside of right and wrong), law could not exist.

The first question is meaningless because its assumed that following the letter and intent of the law are the same thing . And usually they are the same.

The second two are real questions. The answerr is yes to both. You can be true to one and violate the other in some circumstances.

I was hassled by a superviser at work once for violating the letter of the law in a situation in which the law was not needed because the problem the rule was intended to remedy didnt exist in the particular situation , and further- following the rule would actually create problems of its own that wouldnt normally occur because of an odd circumsatnce in the situation.

That same superviser in the same work day ingnored another employee for breaking both the letter and the intent of the very same rule when this other employee created the text book example of the very problem that the rule was designed to prevent.

I was too lazy to point out the superviser's inconsistancy in applying this rule. Maybe I shouldve called him on it. Its still drifts into my mind from time to time.