5 ms·

This is a consequence of enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Bad actors keep finding loopholes to exploit and politicians fix the

This is a consequence of enforcing the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law. Bad actors keep finding loopholes to exploit and politicians fix them with patchwork resulting in overly complex monstrosities of legalese with a million little exceptions. Of course this just adds to the loophole problem. The only way to reliably fix this is to institute some form of judgment of whether or not an actor was following the spirit of the law. If they weren't they should have any advantages gained by skirting the law removed by force. Of course this leads to a different set of problems with the potential for overreaching state actors. One way to combat this could be making the judicial branch much more independent than it usually is in most countries.

sandworm101 8y ago
"Spirit of the law" is a myth. It is something invented by non-lawyers when they want to gloss over something, normally when they dislike how a law is written. Calling for people to comply with "spirit" is simply a call for some arbitor to enforce thier interpretation, thier opinion on spirit. We have judges for that already. Spirit is a dogwhistle for non-lawyers to be involved ... but we have that too. Non-lawyers, elected officials, write and pass the laws. Blame them.
- Bjartr 8y ago
  IIRC, in Europe it's harder for companies to exploit letter-of-the-law loopholes than in the US. So I think you do have a point, but there's more nuance in practice.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    The US obsession with loopholes and "letter of the law" is a historical religious thing. US is protestant, where the language of the bible is made availible to all. Everyone is free to read and invent an interpretation, to find thier own loopholes. Europe follows a more catholic tradition, where biblical language is interpreted through priests. Hence, european judges (legal priests) are given more authority to interpret language and smooth out rough edges. It is centuries-old culture.
    - twic 8y ago
      Ah yes, Martin Luther, that famous American. Who can forget when he inspired President Henry VIII to break with the Catholic church!
    - ben_w 8y ago
      The distinction I’ve heard is called Roman law (continental) versus common law (UK, its colonies and empire).
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - sandworm101 8y ago
        Exactly, the UK being home of one of the largest protestant traditions (COE). The specifics of biblical language and translation is a cornerstone of English political and legal history (see Henry VIII and associated fiascos). But when people speak of European colonial law v common law, they are normally talking about French v. British. The Napoleonic tradition followed in former french colonies is very different than the British common law. And there are places (Louisiana and Quebec) where these two legal traditions were forced to merge. When comparing the two we still see the catholic v protestant split, which is expected given the history. The french relationship with language, that there is a government agency to define words, also leans towards a more authoritarian view of legal interpretation. America today doesn't even have an official national language.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    There's loopholes, but there's also boundaries. In Europe there is scope creep where the boundaries of what's legal versus illegal keep getting redefined. A good example is antitrust enforcement against Google. In the U.S., antitrust is pretty clear cut. In Europe, it's this amorphous thing, where regulators can fine you just because what you're doing rubs them the wrong way.
    - gowld 8y ago
      The European system is better at keeping up with the evolution of crime. The US is generally a step (years) behind.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  Intent of the law might be a better term, but it is clear that intent of the law makers does matter when it comes to court cases trying to decide the actual extents a law can be applied. Even the most legalese specific law can have major gaps depending upon how you read certain words. I've read court cases where judges had to go back to when a law was written, look at other laws, look at how the law was originally applied, and then take this all into account when determining if a specific action was legal or not under such a law.
  - sandworm101 8y ago
    That is judges looking to "drafter's intent" to interpret the language used, something often necessary with very old/new laws. It is a standard tool. Spirit is different, grounded not in language and history but in lay opinion and emotion.
evenkeel024 8y ago
A big issue — at least in the US — is that American laws don’t work well because one American party wishes to destroy government to cut taxes on the rich. Because that is their goal, they want government to work badly. So they obstruct change and improvement. Any system of laws needs to be changed as loopholes are discovered to improve the law. We can’t do that in the US because billionaires own one of our two parties.
- jki275 8y ago
  Not all change is improvement, and the changes proposed by the (current) minority party are not to "improve the law", but to take more from those who work and give it to those who do not. I challenge you to find that particular sentiment anywhere in our founding documents -- if you think it ought to be there, there's a political process to put it there. And the generic sentiment about how horrid it is to "cut taxes on the rich" ignores the fact that taxes almost exclusively impact "the rich" as about 40% of the population pays essentially zero taxes. It's very difficult to cut taxes on those who do not pay them.
  - caconym_ 8y ago
    "The rich" ~= 60% of the population? Yikes. How many percents are you including in your "almost"?
    - jki275 8y ago
      Well that's the question, where do you draw the line. Income tax is actually quite low for even a significant amount of the 60% above that no-tax line. It also ignores the fact that a significant amount of those in that 40% actually get paid credits back at tax time that they didn't pay in. That phenomenon is so well known that January-April sees a significant spike in Xbox and big screen TV sales from that money the government injects into the economy using EIC and other refundable credits. Ultimately I'd rather see people who are investing in building businesses that hire people to get tax cuts, as those can meaningfully impact the economy. Our current tax scheme of high corporate tax and high personal capital gains tax directly disincentivizes investment and economic growth.
pnw_hazor 8y ago
One person's loophole is another person's right. The spirit-of-law comes into play at the enforcement level in the form of executive discretion rather that at the adjudication level. Civil/Social policy behind a law may be brought up during adjudication to help interpret a law -- but if policy is your strongest argument you are usually in a losing case.

sandworm101 8y ago

"Spirit of the law" is a myth. It is something invented by non-lawyers when they want to gloss over something, normally when they dislike how a law is written. Calling for people to comply with "spirit" is simply a call for some arbitor to enforce thier interpretation, thier opinion on spirit. We have judges for that already. Spirit is a dogwhistle for non-lawyers to be involved ... but we have that too. Non-lawyers, elected officials, write and pass the laws. Blame them.

Bjartr 8y ago
IIRC, in Europe it's harder for companies to exploit letter-of-the-law loopholes than in the US. So I think you do have a point, but there's more nuance in practice.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  The US obsession with loopholes and "letter of the law" is a historical religious thing. US is protestant, where the language of the bible is made availible to all. Everyone is free to read and invent an interpretation, to find thier own loopholes. Europe follows a more catholic tradition, where biblical language is interpreted through priests. Hence, european judges (legal priests) are given more authority to interpret language and smooth out rough edges. It is centuries-old culture.
  - twic 8y ago
    Ah yes, Martin Luther, that famous American. Who can forget when he inspired President Henry VIII to break with the Catholic church!
  - ben_w 8y ago
    The distinction I’ve heard is called Roman law (continental) versus common law (UK, its colonies and empire).
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sandworm101 8y ago
      Exactly, the UK being home of one of the largest protestant traditions (COE). The specifics of biblical language and translation is a cornerstone of English political and legal history (see Henry VIII and associated fiascos). But when people speak of European colonial law v common law, they are normally talking about French v. British. The Napoleonic tradition followed in former french colonies is very different than the British common law. And there are places (Louisiana and Quebec) where these two legal traditions were forced to merge. When comparing the two we still see the catholic v protestant split, which is expected given the history. The french relationship with language, that there is a government agency to define words, also leans towards a more authoritarian view of legal interpretation. America today doesn't even have an official national language.
- rayiner 8y ago
  There's loopholes, but there's also boundaries. In Europe there is scope creep where the boundaries of what's legal versus illegal keep getting redefined. A good example is antitrust enforcement against Google. In the U.S., antitrust is pretty clear cut. In Europe, it's this amorphous thing, where regulators can fine you just because what you're doing rubs them the wrong way.
  - gowld 8y ago
    The European system is better at keeping up with the evolution of crime. The US is generally a step (years) behind.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
Intent of the law might be a better term, but it is clear that intent of the law makers does matter when it comes to court cases trying to decide the actual extents a law can be applied. Even the most legalese specific law can have major gaps depending upon how you read certain words. I've read court cases where judges had to go back to when a law was written, look at other laws, look at how the law was originally applied, and then take this all into account when determining if a specific action was legal or not under such a law.
- sandworm101 8y ago
  That is judges looking to "drafter's intent" to interpret the language used, something often necessary with very old/new laws. It is a standard tool. Spirit is different, grounded not in language and history but in lay opinion and emotion.

evenkeel024 8y ago

A big issue — at least in the US — is that American laws don’t work well because one American party wishes to destroy government to cut taxes on the rich. Because that is their goal, they want government to work badly. So they obstruct change and improvement. Any system of laws needs to be changed as loopholes are discovered to improve the law. We can’t do that in the US because billionaires own one of our two parties.

jki275 8y ago
Not all change is improvement, and the changes proposed by the (current) minority party are not to "improve the law", but to take more from those who work and give it to those who do not. I challenge you to find that particular sentiment anywhere in our founding documents -- if you think it ought to be there, there's a political process to put it there. And the generic sentiment about how horrid it is to "cut taxes on the rich" ignores the fact that taxes almost exclusively impact "the rich" as about 40% of the population pays essentially zero taxes. It's very difficult to cut taxes on those who do not pay them.
- caconym_ 8y ago
  "The rich" ~= 60% of the population? Yikes. How many percents are you including in your "almost"?
  - jki275 8y ago
    Well that's the question, where do you draw the line. Income tax is actually quite low for even a significant amount of the 60% above that no-tax line. It also ignores the fact that a significant amount of those in that 40% actually get paid credits back at tax time that they didn't pay in. That phenomenon is so well known that January-April sees a significant spike in Xbox and big screen TV sales from that money the government injects into the economy using EIC and other refundable credits. Ultimately I'd rather see people who are investing in building businesses that hire people to get tax cuts, as those can meaningfully impact the economy. Our current tax scheme of high corporate tax and high personal capital gains tax directly disincentivizes investment and economic growth.

pnw_hazor 8y ago

One person's loophole is another person's right. The spirit-of-law comes into play at the enforcement level in the form of executive discretion rather that at the adjudication level. Civil/Social policy behind a law may be brought up during adjudication to help interpret a law -- but if policy is your strongest argument you are usually in a losing case.