Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I find it distressing that courts can’t even agree on what a law means or says. You would think lawyers would be smart enough to leave no ambiguity so politics don’t enter the picture, but given my level of cynicism I guess I should presume they do it on purpose for job growth and security.
|
No they don't. When money or even liberty turns on words, it is surprisingly hard to be precise.
The famous example from legal philosophy is HLA Hart's "No Vehicles in the Park" law. Does it apply to bicycles? Horse drawn carriages? Skateboards? And how do you deal with the ambiguities- do you have the park and rec department pass a regulation specifying a whole bunch of vehicles that are OK or not OK? And if it does so, is the public on notice of that?
Law strikes a balance between simplicity and precision. It sometimes strikes that balance wrong, and oftentimes when money or liberty is at stakes courts or juries have to step in and make calls. But it isn't actually easy to write laws (and that's before you even reach the issue of the political compromises sometimes necessary to pass them).
