4 ms·

It is much more difficult to establish standards of intent interpretation than it is to establish standards of statutory interpretation. One could imagine a law

It is much more difficult to establish standards of intent interpretation than it is to establish standards of statutory interpretation. One could imagine a law written as follows: In order to facilitate the safe enjoyment of ice cream, puff pastry and pizzas of diverse origins, the health department shall regulate the minimum temperature of freezers in grocery stores, restaurants and other establishments. The minimum temperature shall not be greater than -18C. There are some gaps that a court needs to fill in order to apply this statute: - The health department and the area of effect are not specified but these can be assumed to be the health department and area connected to whatever legislature passed the statute. If there is no health department that is the obvious one -- if, for example, it was passed by a city legislature and the city has no health department -- this could introduce some difficulty. - The use of "minimum" and "shall not be greater" together in this statute are confused and confusing but since it pertains to freezers, the court can infer that freezers must be set to temperatures of -18C or below (-19C, &c). However, sorting out the true intent presents insoluble problems that would lead to inconsistent interpretation of the law. Perhaps an establishment only has frozen fish. Does this law apply to them? Generally, the rule is that clear intent clauses -- "In order to facilitate the safe enjoyment of ice cream, puff pastry and pizzas of diverse origins..." -- are ignored in statutory interpretation. The operative part of the statute is that "...the health department shall regulate the minimum temperature of freezers in grocery stores, restaurants and other establishments." and that the temperature established by the health department must be -18C or below.

seabass-labrax 2y ago
No standard ways of interpretation will make up for a poorly-written statute - and, with all due respect, that's what your hypothetical example is. In liberal democracies, we expect our representatives to pass only laws that have low ambiguity, and sometimes require third-party review to ensure this. Why would any legislature pass a law delegating responsibility to a non-existent agency? How could this legislature pass a law with clearly contradictory stipulations regarding temperature? Then, finally, for what reason would intent clauses be written if they were then be entirely ignored? In conclusion, I think that your hypothetical system of government has greater problems than any inherent difficulty in expressing legal intent that may exist.
- ClumsyPilot 2y ago
  > In liberal democracies, we expect our representatives to pass only laws that have low ambiguity Do we really? UK law is full considerations like what would a ‘reasonable’ person do. Also full of terms that are ambiguous - loitering for example.
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    Jeez, no kidding. Think about criminal sentencing guidelines. Not all circumstances are the same.
  - JAlexoid 2y ago
    UK, just like the US, legal system is a Common Law system. They are bound by history, with all of the caveats that come from that system. Most of liberal democracies use Civil Law system, where it's a lot more prescriptive in the laws themselves.
- solidsnack9000 2y ago
  If the facts change, I change my mind; but I don't think you're being realistic, here. Judges sometimes have to interpret poorly-written statutes. Legal drafting has improved a lot over the last hundred and fifty years or so; but that has been a gradual process. Some countries have what are effectively brand new political and legal systems; but countries with comparatively long histories of stable governance generally have comparatively old laws that must be interpreted. You ask three questions in the foregoing: - Why would any legislature pass a law delegating responsibility to a non-existent agency? If the city does not have a health department, it may be that the county does, or the state does, and they meant to delegate to them. - How could this legislature pass a law with clearly contradictory stipulations regarding temperature? The stipulations make use of a common, unfortunate misphrasing; that doesn't mean they are actually contradictory. - Then, finally, for what reason would intent clauses be written if they were then be entirely ignored? Intent clauses are generally considered non-binding, in legal systems all over the world. Another commenter has pointed out that this is the case not only in the Anglo-American system but also in the EU system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41284984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41284984 That doesn't mean intent clauses serve no purpose. It just means they don't serve the purpose of providing a specific, actionable rule.

seabass-labrax 2y ago

No standard ways of interpretation will make up for a poorly-written statute - and, with all due respect, that's what your hypothetical example is. In liberal democracies, we expect our representatives to pass only laws that have low ambiguity, and sometimes require third-party review to ensure this. Why would any legislature pass a law delegating responsibility to a non-existent agency? How could this legislature pass a law with clearly contradictory stipulations regarding temperature? Then, finally, for what reason would intent clauses be written if they were then be entirely ignored? In conclusion, I think that your hypothetical system of government has greater problems than any inherent difficulty in expressing legal intent that may exist.

ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> In liberal democracies, we expect our representatives to pass only laws that have low ambiguity Do we really? UK law is full considerations like what would a ‘reasonable’ person do. Also full of terms that are ambiguous - loitering for example.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Jeez, no kidding. Think about criminal sentencing guidelines. Not all circumstances are the same.
- JAlexoid 2y ago
  UK, just like the US, legal system is a Common Law system. They are bound by history, with all of the caveats that come from that system. Most of liberal democracies use Civil Law system, where it's a lot more prescriptive in the laws themselves.
solidsnack9000 2y ago
If the facts change, I change my mind; but I don't think you're being realistic, here. Judges sometimes have to interpret poorly-written statutes. Legal drafting has improved a lot over the last hundred and fifty years or so; but that has been a gradual process. Some countries have what are effectively brand new political and legal systems; but countries with comparatively long histories of stable governance generally have comparatively old laws that must be interpreted. You ask three questions in the foregoing: - Why would any legislature pass a law delegating responsibility to a non-existent agency? If the city does not have a health department, it may be that the county does, or the state does, and they meant to delegate to them. - How could this legislature pass a law with clearly contradictory stipulations regarding temperature? The stipulations make use of a common, unfortunate misphrasing; that doesn't mean they are actually contradictory. - Then, finally, for what reason would intent clauses be written if they were then be entirely ignored? Intent clauses are generally considered non-binding, in legal systems all over the world. Another commenter has pointed out that this is the case not only in the Anglo-American system but also in the EU system: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41284984 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41284984 That doesn't mean intent clauses serve no purpose. It just means they don't serve the purpose of providing a specific, actionable rule.