RoR: Forum

The idea of stating the law as a set of principles meant to achieve a peaceful society makes a great deal of sense. However, the current body of law is flawed in the specialised training is required to understand it.

I think that laws should be written in the plainest English possible, so that all literate citizens can read the law and understand it. If the average person can read a law and understand it, then "spirit-of-the-law" interpretation becomes unnecessary.

Post 1

Thursday, May 16, 2002 - 3:15pm

I think it is important that the law should be written clearly. No argument there.

But are you saying that rule based laws would still be okay if they were written clearly? One of my points in the article is that rule-based laws, like rule-based ethics, always have bad side-effects since they can't take into account the context.

An example is "Thou shalt not kill". That's a rule. But we make all kinds of exceptions. You can kill plans and animals. You can kill in self-defense. You can kill someone sentenced to death. You can kill to assist someone who needs help killing themselves.

Even if the rule is clear, it's unjust and inappropriate in some contexts. A clear principle wouldn't have these drawbacks. What we have now is people taking rules, and trying to guess at what principle they correspond to, so they can decide whether it's appropriate. My point was that if it can be done, why not do it explicitly?

So I see the clarity of the laws as being very important, but a separate issue from the form of the laws.

Post 2

Monday, December 23, 2002 - 6:36am

Look at the Family Law Court if you want see how horrific the idea of interpreted law has really become.

Post 3

Saturday, February 15, 2003 - 3:20pm

Mr. Rowlands.
I am a High School student on the debate team, and our current resolution is "When in conflict, the letter of the law ought to take priority over the spirit of the law." What do you think about this resolution? If, as a matter of principle, not policy, you had to choose one over the other, which would you choose? What are your arguments for both sides?

Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kyle

Post 4

Sunday, February 23, 2003 - 2:59pm

Hello Kyle,

From my article, it should be clear that both have problems. There is no clear winner. However, if I had to choose between them, I think the "letter of the law" would be better.

The reason is that the letter of the law preserves the "rule of law" vs. "the rule of men". When you go by what's written, you have some objective criteria to fall back on. You're not subject to the whims of a judge or the government. At least, the whims are restricted.

The spirit of the law, though, can be interpreted to mean anything. You leave the decision making entirely in the hands of others, giving them absolute control over your life.

The letter of the law creates bad laws that will create injustices. But the injustices will be limited in scope, and future laws will hopefully try to reduce those injustices. The greatest injustices, though, come from other people with massive power and no responsibility. Giving a judge the power to interpret the spirit of the law gives him power over your life, with no defense against it.

Both have their negative sides, but I personally think the spirit of the law allows for the greatest injustices.

Post 5

Sunday, March 8, 2009 - 6:46pm