• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's more important: The spirit of the law or the letter of the law?

What's more important: The spirit of the law or the letter of the law?

  • Letter of the law

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Spirit of the law

    Votes: 10 55.6%
  • Depends on the crime/situation (please elaborate)

    Votes: 4 22.2%

  • Total voters
    18

radcen

Phonetic Mnemonic ©
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
34,817
Reaction score
18,576
Location
Look to your right... I'm that guy.
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
What's more important: The spirit of the law or the letter of the law?

Which one should be the guiding principle in our legal/justice system?
 
If the letter doesn't embody the spirit, then the legislators got it wrong. As to which is preferable, that would depend on which end of the decision you were sitting. Ultimately the letter should stand, since the interpretation of the spirit varies.
 
You have to balance the two. The spirit of the law can be too subjective, the letter of the law may lack the flexibility to handle unusual circumstances.
 
I think America would be better off if we went more by spirit than letter. For instance, do you really think that the Founding Fathers could envision the world being like this 230+ years later? They'd also be pissed that most Americans see the Bill of Rights as a restriction on them instead of what it truly was - a restriction on government.

I think almost half of people today would be sympathizers to the crown in those days.
 
I think America would be better off if we went more by spirit than letter. For instance, do you really think that the Founding Fathers could envision the world being like this 230+ years later? They'd also be pissed that most Americans see the Bill of Rights as a restriction on them instead of what it truly was - a restriction on government.

I think almost half of people today would be sympathizers to the crown in those days.

Well, half the people back then were supporters of the crown.
 
Well, half the people back then were supporters of the crown.

If it was half, we would've lost the Revolution. Even though England was still embroiled in a long-standing war with France across the pond, they still sent plenty of troops and supplies to the colonies. France sent some, but not nearly along the same numbers. Also, their navy did massive damage to coastal establishments.

There were plenty of British sympathizers, but not enough that they alone could hold back the continental armies and militia alone or with minimal help.
 
Neither will work.

Spirit of the law allows personal interpretation based on personal opinion, and we all think differently.

Letter of the law assumes that the author of the law encompassed every possible scenario, which is impossible.

Law is neither black or white, but various shades of gray.

Peoples opinions change, as does their judgement, as do our laws.

This is why we have case law, which fine tunes the laws, and allow lawyers large salaries.

Our legal system, though, is quite complex, which is a huge problem.
 
Neither will work.

Spirit of the law allows personal interpretation based on personal opinion, and we all think differently.

Letter of the law assumes that the author of the law encompassed every possible scenario, which is impossible.

Law is neither black or white, but various shades of gray.

Peoples opinions change, as does their judgement, as do our laws.

This is why we have case law, which fine tunes the laws, and allow lawyers large salaries.

Our legal system, though, is quite complex, which is a huge problem.

If your "personal opinion" of law leads to interpretation that deviates too far from the norm, it doesn't hold up. This is why we have mistrials, retrials, appeals, etc.

The law is indeed black and white, but the wiggle room isn't endless.
 
If your "personal opinion" of law leads to interpretation that deviates too far from the norm, it doesn't hold up. This is why we have mistrials, retrials, appeals, etc.

The law is indeed black and white, but the wiggle room isn't endless.

Really?

Then explain to me why the 1A and 2A amendments cannot be understood the same by everybody?

Their wording is quite simple and short.
 
What's more important: The spirit of the law or the letter of the law?

Which one should be the guiding principle in our legal/justice system?


In the case of the United States, the inclusion of a Judicial Branch seems to indicate our Founding Fathers knew the spirit of the law would inevitably take precedent over the letter of the law.
 
Citizens can only be held accountable to the letter of the law - they cannot be expected to interpret what some legislative body may have meant to enact. Likewise, a judge and/or jury must be limited to the letter of the law. A country gets in trouble when the judiciary substitutes their opinion for the words enacted. If, in practice, a law is applied contrary to the intent, the legislative body is free to amend or rescind it at its convenience.
 
Really?

Then explain to me why the 1A and 2A amendments cannot be understood the same by everybody?

Their wording is quite simple and short.

Sorry, meant to say is indeed NOT black and white.

My bad.

However, the amendments are challenged not because of interpretation, but because of political bias. As I mentioned before, the BoR is meant to be a limitation on government, not on people. However, liberal anti-gun nuts want to use a piece of paper meant to strip federal powers to strip the people it was designed to protect.
 
Sorry, meant to say is indeed NOT black and white.

My bad.

However, the amendments are challenged not because of interpretation, but because of political bias. As I mentioned before, the BoR is meant to be a limitation on government, not on people. However, liberal anti-gun nuts want to use a piece of paper meant to strip federal powers to strip the people it was designed to protect.

Gottcha!

Ah, my friend, I would argue that political bias is interpretation.

Whether an individual of a group, the ideology is their opinion, yes?
 
Gottcha!

Ah, my friend, I would argue that political bias is interpretation.

Whether an individual of a group, the ideology is their opinion, yes?

Oh, if it's any jackass on the street, sure...they can have whatever opinion they want.

I just want my judges to stick somewhat close to the letter of the law. Bench-sponsored activism needs to be squashed at every instance.

Their political bias is important, and there's a system designed to make sure it is very minimal.
 
Oh, if it's any jackass on the street, sure...they can have whatever opinion they want.

I just want my judges to stick somewhat close to the letter of the law. Bench-sponsored activism needs to be squashed at every instance.

Their political bias is important, and there's a system designed to make sure it is very minimal.

Those jackasses on the street whom you detest vote for judges that you like.
 
Ultimately only the letter of the law when it comes to the Constitution. For the body of the Constitution one can go to the Federalist Papers if one needs to see the underlying spirit that the letter is determined by. For the Bill of Rights the Anti-federalist papers will do so. And with each other amendments one should view the debates when this Amendment was being brought up.

When it comes to statuary laws thee is a little more wiggle room but the letter of the law should be predominant.
 
Sorry, meant to say is indeed NOT black and white.

My bad.

However, the amendments are challenged not because of interpretation, but because of political bias. As I mentioned before, the BoR is meant to be a limitation on government, not on people. However, liberal anti-gun nuts want to use a piece of paper meant to strip federal powers to strip the people it was designed to protect.

I would probably be labelled as one of these "liberals" that you speak. I most definitely agree that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people, and this is most definitely a good thing. However, some of these rights are not absolute, nor should they be. I am a big fan of the freedom of speech, but I think there should be certain limitations to the 1st Amendment. I am a fan of a persons right to own a gun, but I think their should be certain limitations. Should libel and slander be legal? No. Should it be legal to incite and riot? No. Should any ordinary person be able to purchase a machine gun? No. Should a mentally unstable be able to easily purchase a firearm? No.
 
I would probably be labelled as one of these "liberals" that you speak. I most definitely agree that the Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government, not the people, and this is most definitely a good thing. However, some of these rights are not absolute, nor should they be. I am a big fan of the freedom of speech, but I think there should be certain limitations to the 1st Amendment. I am a fan of a persons right to own a gun, but I think their should be certain limitations. Should libel and slander be legal? No. Should it be legal to incite and riot? No. Should any ordinary person be able to purchase a machine gun? No. Should a mentally unstable be able to easily purchase a firearm? No.

I don't want guns to be like gum, where anyone can walk in to an establishment, pull one off the shelves, swipe a credit card and walk out. However, I'm not against the sale of machine guns because they still operate under the same rules as any other firearm. It's no more of a crime, in my opinion, to unload hundreds of bullets on innocent people with a machine gun than it is a handgun.

"Assault weapons" are no more or less deadly than any other firearm you can get out there. My main limitations involve who qualify for ownership. Felons, minors, and the mentally ill come to mind.
 
I don't want guns to be like gum, where anyone can walk in to an establishment, pull one off the shelves, swipe a credit card and walk out. However, I'm not against the sale of machine guns because they still operate under the same rules as any other firearm. It's no more of a crime, in my opinion, to unload hundreds of bullets on innocent people with a machine gun than it is a handgun.

"Assault weapons" are no more or less deadly than any other firearm you can get out there. My main limitations involve who qualify for ownership. Felons, minors, and the mentally ill come to mind.

Well, the difference would be that a machine gun has a much greater potential for mass killings than a handgun would. A crazy nut with a handgun won't inflict nearly as much damage as a crazy nut with a machine gun.

This is a bit off topic, but I'm actually thinking of purchasing a gun myself (I've always been open to the idea of owning a gun). Mostly for self-defense purposes and having fun at a shooting range. I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about the types of guns, specifically. I don't know if you're the person to ask, but any recommendations?
 
The letter.

Because there we can, at least, call for reason, logic - and - for what it's worth - semantic clarity. The "spirit" is anything you want it to be.
 
This is a bit off topic, but I'm actually thinking of purchasing a gun myself (I've always been open to the idea of owning a gun). Mostly for self-defense purposes and having fun at a shooting range. I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about the types of guns, specifically. I don't know if you're the person to ask, but any recommendations?

As with any other tool, the decision on what to buy depends entirely on what its intended end use would be...
 
As with any other tool, the decision on what to buy depends entirely on what its intended end use would be...

I just stated my intended use. Self-defense and fun at a shooting range....
 
Well, the difference would be that a machine gun has a much greater potential for mass killings than a handgun would. A crazy nut with a handgun won't inflict nearly as much damage as a crazy nut with a machine gun.

This is a bit off topic, but I'm actually thinking of purchasing a gun myself (I've always been open to the idea of owning a gun). Mostly for self-defense purposes and having fun at a shooting range. I'll admit, I don't know a whole lot about the types of guns, specifically. I don't know if you're the person to ask, but any recommendations?

We'll agree to disagree on the "machine gun has greater potential for mass killings".

Well I do own a gun, but it depends on what you want. Do you need a lot of stopping power, or are you just talking about something that will make sure you don't get messed with. If you're looking at plain ol' self defense, you could probably manage with a .22 or Beretta.
 
Really?

Then explain to me why the 1A and 2A amendments cannot be understood the same by everybody?

Their wording is quite simple and short.

Short does not mean clearly written.

A bow on a ship and a bow on stage are two different things.
 
I just stated my intended use. Self-defense and fun at a shooting range....

Those may be two entirely different purposes. AR's are a lot of fun, but unless you get training they are not much good for self defense. Shotguns can be good for home defense, but the ones that would be used are not much fun to shoot. I think you get the drift...
 
Back
Top Bottom