why do lawyers and members of the bench and bar ........?

Question

prefer the 'purposive interpretation' to the 'plain meaning' in determining constitutional intrerpretations.

Answer 1

The meaning behind the statute is different to interpretting it word for word, isn't that what all lawyers are taught to do re any statute.

Answer 2

The reason we use the purposive interpretation (also known as the mischief rule) as opposed to the plain meaning (also known as the literal rule) is because sometimes it is preferable to look at the intention of the statute in question in order to determine how to apply it. Some statutes may be poorly drafted and a literal application may mean that Parliament's real intentions are not upheld. Therefore, Judges give themselves more room for interpreation by looking at the 'mischief' the statute was intended to prevent or rectify.

A well known example is where a statute intended to prevent protitutes soliciting customers stated a person may not "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution". The defendants in the case were calling to customers from balconies and terraces. A strict, literal application of the law would have created a technical loophole, as long as you were not on the 'street' soliciting would have been 'legal'. Purposive interpretation allowed the Courts to close the loophole and ensure that the aims of the statute were upheld.

Answer 3

Purposive theory is a theory of statutory interpretation that holds that common law courts should interpret legislation in light of the purpose behind the legislation. Sometimes statutes are incomplete or not entirely clear and a plain text interpretation isn't always possible.

The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that citizens cannot be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". So what does due process mean? It's not in the text. It's up to the legislature and the courts to fill in the blanks.

Answer 4

Often because words have a different meaning at different points in time.

So judges, lawyers, etc. try to go back to the laws or decisions to try and determine what the *purpose* of the law or decision was, rather than just accept what the law or decision says on its face.

Or if a decision or law was violated, if the current "crime" actually was meant to have been covered under the original law.

Make sense? If you need more clarification, just ask, and I'll try again.

Cheers, mate.

Answer 5

So we don`t know what the hell their talking about.

Answer 6

because they all want to be Judge Judy!