Letter vs Spirit of Law
The cluster debates the interpretation of laws, contrasting strict literal readings (letter of the law) with judicial consideration of legislative intent (spirit of the law), dismissing technical semantic arguments in favor of clear, intended meanings.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
These kind of 'I'm technically correct' arguments don't work with the law as they do in programming - Judges just say 'that's obviously not what is intended'.
Well that's an argument between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law it sounds like.
Don't confuse what makes sense with what the law says.
That is not how laws work. "could be interpreted" doesn't matter when there is one clearly stated and intended interpretation.
That's interesting. So the laws aren't being taken literally?
Thats your interpretation, not the law.
You are arguing the difference between the letter and spirit of the law.
Laws are not about dictionary definitions or personal interpretation. They are a formal specification and that formality is what we call "legalese".I'm not a lawyer, so I would probably mess up the explanation, but fortunately I saved the link to it, so you can read it straight from the lawyer who explained it right here on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3696526
I am not a lawyer, but vague laws are unconstitutional, so, your interpretation is highly unlikely to pass scrutiny.
Words don't mean things is an interesting legal precedent.