Do you believe that the letter of the law is less important than its intent, or more important?

Question

In other words, is it more important to follow the precise language of the law or obtain the grander outcome it was created to achieve? Explain please.


This question can apply to any system of regulations that attempts to influence what one may or may not do. Some examples might include legislative acts, constitutional amendments, religious commandments, relationship guidelines, athletic codes... etc.

Great point, "jurydoc" about many laws being vague and that over time, the intent is sometimes lost. But I suppose there can be advantages to vague regulations, one that it has the ability to evolve over time to changing social environments without having to rewrite it.

I wonder what the United States would be like if the Founding Fathers had included intent when drafting the Bill of Rights.

I agree with "thedrighten" regarding the fact that adequate in one case is not necessarily adequate in another. In addition, it is difficult enough to apply the letter of the law across political boundaries and jurisdiction, much less the intent.

Answer 1

My personal belief is in the intent of the law. That said, the police believe in the letter of the law, and so do the courts in most cases. Sometimes a progressive judge will listen to explanations, sometimes not.

Now, my personal creedo: A law is made with the intent of protecting the majority from the actions of a minority, and the same can be said for legislation, constitution, religion, relation etc. If it is adequate to the situation to follow this intent, then it should be followed. Herein lies the rub. Adequate in one case is not in another. Thereby lies the reason for letter of the ?, which makes every case available to determination by a body of enforcement such as police, who now do not need to know case history etc, but may enforce based on the law as written. This applies in community. For one, isolated, it would not matter. But for one, isolated, there would be no enforcement either, right?

Answer 2

I think that the intent of the law is most important.
For example: The USA has a law that forbids US businesses from doing business with terrorists and Iran.
Haliburton Corp. is a US business (VP Cheney was a Director of Haliburton until December 31, 2000).

Haliburton bought a foreign subsidiary and that subsidiary was doing business with Iran.
At the same time Haliburton was receiving no bid contracts from the USA for work in Iraq and President Bush was screaming about Iran's attempt to obtain their own nuclear technology to make a bomb.

Haliburton was wrong by doing business with Iran through the "loophole" in the law.
They should be punished by having to refund the amount they received from the US while doing work for our enemy.

Answer 3

Certainly the spirit (or intent) of the law is by far more important - it contains the highest expression of what the law was intended to do, and attempting to follow it means that it will be enforced as close as possible to the wishes of those who passed it.

Following the letter of the law, on the other hand, frequently distorts and perverts the intent, and generally leads to the law being used in an arbitrary and unjust manner.

Answer 4

The difficulty with attempting to incorporate "intent" of the law is to decide whose intent?? When language is vague and left open to interpretation this is what happens. Then it becomes the purview of those who are in the position of power (courts) to interpret what was actually meant, instead of what was actually written. Sometimes a great deal of time has passed since the law was written and intent has to be inferred retroactively. While we can entertain notions of the spirit of the law, I would prefer to see laws written in more precise language to clearly state the intent of the majority in its passage, rather than to infer intent at a later time.

Answer 5

Good question.

I try to factor the intent of the law into a lot of my decisions as a police officer. So I believe that is an important factor. I don't like trying to read into laws and make them fit into situations where they aren't needed or aren't supposed to be

Answer 6

If we the persons agreed with the guidelines handed then it may be the regulation no longer convenience of the persons... We created a constitutional government to set aside from the tyranny of a monarchy or a wealthy type and now the tea occasion with republicans think of the tyranny of the wealthy is freedom...

Answer 7

I would say intent should always be factored in. Life doesn't deal in absolutes and neither should laws...As an example, if an 18 year old senior in high school does the deed with his 16 year old junior female classmate, should he end up serving 5 years in prison, I would say no.

Answer 8

I think the intent of the law is more important.