4 ms·

To me it seems like you contradict yourself. > it would be better [to adopt a law system] which maximizes the human interpretive element rather than attempts t

To me it seems like you contradict yourself. > it would be better [to adopt a law system] which maximizes the human interpretive element rather than attempts to remove it. > twist the law in any direction which benefits them, even in ways that don't feel right. The first statement seems to say that the more humans can interpret the law the better, the second statement seems to imply that people actually doing such interpretation with the tools available now is a bad thing. It's a good thing your comment is not a legal text though. Otherwise some formalism would be quite welcome to derive the intended meaning.

applepple 5y ago
There is no contradiction. Countries which put more focus on the intent of the law (like Europe) tend to have fairer outcomes than countries which focus too much on the wording of the law like in the US. I read that many criminals in the US get away with crimes because of failures of procedure by the prosecution for example; this is a clear sign that there is too much focus on the wording of the law. If intent counted more, then nobody would be acquitted of a crime on the basis of a technicality. It's the fact that people have accepted the primacy of the written word that they allow themselves to be swayed to accept verdicts which don't make sense. It's important to factor in the fact that criminal justice involves multiple jurors, so you don't want some outdated wording written in the 1900s to allow one bad juror to use wording of a law or precedent to convince other jurors of a conclusion which best matches the wording but defies common sense. It's like in the US constitution, there is this paragraph: ”No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" And yet today the US government (which is clearly an alliance of states) pays back its debts by printing more money not backed by gold. People have used the wording "No state" to imply that the Federal government is not a state and therefore, it doesn't apply. But clearly this defies common sense about the intent of the law which was to prevent the government from printing unlimited money not tethered to any scarce asset to inflate away its true debt... And yet this is exactly what the federal government (the alliance of states) is doing nowadays.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  > I read that many criminals in the US get away with crimes because of failures of procedure by the prosecution for example; How does anyone know they got away with a crime if their cases never went to trial? Isn't that exactly what a trial is there to establish. The USA has a long history of village folk "just knowing" that an accused is guilty. Seldom worked out well. Pilots have procedures they must follow. So do cops. They just need to do their jobs properly.
  - applepple 5y ago
    >> How does anyone know they got away with a crime if their cases never went to trial? Based on probability, you can safely assume that some percentage of them were guilty. That is more correct than assuming that they were all innocent. But to presume innocence simply on the basis that they were not convicted is itself part of the problem wereby the procedure and the wording takes precedence over the intent. In reality, there is no certainty; some guilty people will be acquitted and some innocent people will be charged. To put too much weight on the words 'guilty' or 'innocent' is to ignore this reality.
    - jackpirate 5y ago
      You seem to have several misunderstandings about the intent of US law in this thread. The intent of US law is specifically to allow many guilty people to be freed due to procedural errors, and so the fact that this happens is not taking "precedence over the intent". Also, in the US, no one is ever found "innocent" in court. They are found either guilty or not guilty.
    - UncleEntity 5y ago
      > But to presume innocence simply on the basis that they were not convicted is itself part of the problem wereby the procedure and the wording takes precedence over the intent. Unless the intent is "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."
- bryanrasmussen 5y ago
elcomet 5y ago
I don't think it's a contradiction. If you follow the exact wording of the law, it's easier to find loopholes (like a hacker looking for a breach). If you follow the intent of the law, then it's much harder. A judge will see if you acted in bad faith, if your actions are against the spirit of the law.

applepple 5y ago

There is no contradiction. Countries which put more focus on the intent of the law (like Europe) tend to have fairer outcomes than countries which focus too much on the wording of the law like in the US. I read that many criminals in the US get away with crimes because of failures of procedure by the prosecution for example; this is a clear sign that there is too much focus on the wording of the law. If intent counted more, then nobody would be acquitted of a crime on the basis of a technicality. It's the fact that people have accepted the primacy of the written word that they allow themselves to be swayed to accept verdicts which don't make sense. It's important to factor in the fact that criminal justice involves multiple jurors, so you don't want some outdated wording written in the 1900s to allow one bad juror to use wording of a law or precedent to convince other jurors of a conclusion which best matches the wording but defies common sense. It's like in the US constitution, there is this paragraph: ”No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" And yet today the US government (which is clearly an alliance of states) pays back its debts by printing more money not backed by gold. People have used the wording "No state" to imply that the Federal government is not a state and therefore, it doesn't apply. But clearly this defies common sense about the intent of the law which was to prevent the government from printing unlimited money not tethered to any scarce asset to inflate away its true debt... And yet this is exactly what the federal government (the alliance of states) is doing nowadays.

throwaway210222 5y ago
> I read that many criminals in the US get away with crimes because of failures of procedure by the prosecution for example; How does anyone know they got away with a crime if their cases never went to trial? Isn't that exactly what a trial is there to establish. The USA has a long history of village folk "just knowing" that an accused is guilty. Seldom worked out well. Pilots have procedures they must follow. So do cops. They just need to do their jobs properly.
- applepple 5y ago
  >> How does anyone know they got away with a crime if their cases never went to trial? Based on probability, you can safely assume that some percentage of them were guilty. That is more correct than assuming that they were all innocent. But to presume innocence simply on the basis that they were not convicted is itself part of the problem wereby the procedure and the wording takes precedence over the intent. In reality, there is no certainty; some guilty people will be acquitted and some innocent people will be charged. To put too much weight on the words 'guilty' or 'innocent' is to ignore this reality.
  - jackpirate 5y ago
    You seem to have several misunderstandings about the intent of US law in this thread. The intent of US law is specifically to allow many guilty people to be freed due to procedural errors, and so the fact that this happens is not taking "precedence over the intent". Also, in the US, no one is ever found "innocent" in court. They are found either guilty or not guilty.
  - UncleEntity 5y ago
    > But to presume innocence simply on the basis that they were not convicted is itself part of the problem wereby the procedure and the wording takes precedence over the intent. Unless the intent is "it is better a hundred guilty persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer."
bryanrasmussen 5y ago

elcomet 5y ago

I don't think it's a contradiction. If you follow the exact wording of the law, it's easier to find loopholes (like a hacker looking for a breach). If you follow the intent of the law, then it's much harder. A judge will see if you acted in bad faith, if your actions are against the spirit of the law.