English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-25 05:44:09 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

9 answers

The best they can.

Coach

2006-11-25 05:51:11 · answer #1 · answered by Thanks for the Yahoo Jacket 7 · 1 1

In every extent. Statutes are rarely written to cover all situations. Judges must figure out the legislative intent behind the statute. Both the Purpose and the Method of Application are part of the legislative intent. Both matter. Some statutes are clearly written so that the Method should be used to determine the outcome, regardless of what that outcome may be. Others are clearly written for a specific outcome and the courts may change the methods of application (through the creation and modification of rules) to achieve that outcome. Some statutes are just outright ambiguous and courts have to either take a stab at it or, in the case of penal statutes, through it out because of the Vagueness of the statute. Of course the process itself is much more extensive than this and quite a bit more complex. But, this is a simplified version of how judges come to the decisions that they come to. If you wish to read an interesting article, there was one published in the 2005 Arkansas Law Notes by professor M.W. Mullane. It begins on page 73. The full title of the article is: Statutory Interpretation in Arkansas: How Arkansas Courts Interpret Statutes. A Rational Approach.
Note that although this article focuses on statutory interpretation in Arkansas, the processes are the same throughout the USA. The only real difference lies in the definitions of some statutory terms.

2006-11-25 05:58:21 · answer #2 · answered by cyanne2ak 7 · 0 1

They apply the law where it clearly applies to the case and extend it to a new instance if it doesn't. There was an interesting lecture at the British Academy by Neil MacCormick which was reviewed here http://gracchii.blogspot.com/2006/10/judicial-academy.html you might like to look at the article or the original text for further thoughts.

2006-11-25 09:43:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

In a lot of cases, To whatever extent that is most pleasing to themselves.

2006-11-25 05:47:23 · answer #4 · answered by breedgemh_101 5 · 0 0

To the extent they like or which ever is less work most of the time.

2006-11-25 06:20:27 · answer #5 · answered by Kayla [(Adam)] 4 · 0 1

The more crime the more jobs for lawyers and by extension the judges (because of course they are ex-lawyers). So judges ensure that crime remains at the current level or higher to keep them and their lawyer friends in very, very well paid (from the taxpayer) jobs.

2006-11-25 05:54:56 · answer #6 · answered by A True Gentleman 5 · 0 1

I don't think they do. A murder should be a life for a life - but it never is. Even paedophiles get a slap on the wrist. No, there is absolutely no justice for victims in this country.

2006-11-25 06:00:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Well they do try to apply it but they can also apply equity if they think that its fair

2006-11-25 05:56:36 · answer #8 · answered by danieldeskbrain 2 · 0 1

Do they apply the law or do they make it up blah blah blah... do your own essay lazybones!

2006-11-25 05:55:25 · answer #9 · answered by westernveil 2 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers