3 ms·

All the laws are judged on intent, not on the exact wording, why would finance laws be any different than the other ones ?

• mike_hearn 10y ago
  No, people are judged on intent. Laws are meant to be applied as written. That's why you hear about people getting off on a technicality, and why you hear about obviously dumb rulings like two teenagers who get into a relationship and end up guilty of paedophilia. That obviously wasn't the intent of the lawmakers, but it's the result of the law as written. The notion of intent is a very important protection in law ... for the accused. For lawmakers, not so much.
  • gsnedders 10y ago
    > Laws are meant to be applied as written. That's why you hear about people getting off on a technicality, and why you hear about obviously dumb rulings like two teenagers who get into a relationship and end up guilty of paedophilia. This isn't true in the English legal system, which seems worthwhile to note given its wide reaching influence. When dealing with statue law (because obviously common law cannot be applied as written!), judges have three options as to how to interpret the law: the literal rule, where the law is interpreted literally as written; the mischief rule, where something that would have been judged illegal under common law can be judged to have been intended to be illegal under the statue law even though it is not literally; and finally the golden rule, which essentially allows the judge to avoid an absurd result. (It's relatively similar under Scots law, and I cannot comment as to elsewhere.)
• DannyBee 10y ago
  Wait what? in the US, laws are judged on exact wording first, and then intent only if the wording is unclear.