pgriz
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2010
- Messages
- 6,734
- Reaction score
- 3,221
- Location
- Canada
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
There are all kinds of laws. There are written laws, and unwritten laws. There are good laws and bad laws. There are well-crafted laws, and poorly-though-out laws. There are laws that are clear and there are laws that are internally contradictory. There are laws that truly represent the consensus of the society, and there are those that are useful only to a small special interest group. There are laws written by man, and laws inspired by God but still written and interpreted by men. (Aside - would laws written by women be different from those written by men? Intriguing thought.)
Laws are not written in isolation, as they are usually created to address a need of some kind. And the need that is being addressed is often context-specific and represents a moment in time in the society in which the law is written. As societies evolve or change, the underlying needs that the law(s) addressed may or may not continue to be the same. So it appears that laws, even if well written and well supported, have a best-by date after which they should be re-examined to determine if the "cure" they represent still fits the needs, and whether the needs have changed.
So when someone is called a "criminal" because they broke a law, it is useful to think about which law was broken and the context in which it was broken.
As for the OP, you answered your own question - "in my heart I'd see it as wrong". It doesn't really matter what the "written" law says, as there is no law written so well as to anticipate every aspect of a situation under every condition, and in the end, it becomes a judgement call as to whether the "spirit" of the law was broken. In my experience, those who insist on the "letter of the law" know that their interpretation is not conform to the "spirit" of the law, but they want the advantage that the narrowly-defined written words give them.
Laws are not written in isolation, as they are usually created to address a need of some kind. And the need that is being addressed is often context-specific and represents a moment in time in the society in which the law is written. As societies evolve or change, the underlying needs that the law(s) addressed may or may not continue to be the same. So it appears that laws, even if well written and well supported, have a best-by date after which they should be re-examined to determine if the "cure" they represent still fits the needs, and whether the needs have changed.
So when someone is called a "criminal" because they broke a law, it is useful to think about which law was broken and the context in which it was broken.
As for the OP, you answered your own question - "in my heart I'd see it as wrong". It doesn't really matter what the "written" law says, as there is no law written so well as to anticipate every aspect of a situation under every condition, and in the end, it becomes a judgement call as to whether the "spirit" of the law was broken. In my experience, those who insist on the "letter of the law" know that their interpretation is not conform to the "spirit" of the law, but they want the advantage that the narrowly-defined written words give them.