Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
The first principle you list is the "rule of lenity"- an actual rule lawyers apply in interpretation. Err on the side of narrowing the prohibition.
The rest of it, I can only tell you that to "put it in from the start" requires that you get it through a legislature full of politicians, and sometimes it isn't even possible because the only way to get a bill through is to leave something ambiguous. (This happens in contract negotiations too, BTW. The parties can't agree on something, want to do the deal, and leave the term open or ambiguous. Later the lawyers have to clean up matters when there's a dispute.)
And, of course, you can't anticipate everything. If "no vehicles in the park" predated the automobile, how do we apply it to the automobile? Or some weird set of facts comes up, as in the Coronation Cases (e.g., Krell v. Henry) where a renter paid above market rent to rent an apartment to see a coronation parade that was later postponed. What do you do?
And there's also the problem that when you write detailed, unambiguous regulations, they are pages long and nobody reads them.
We try. Believe me, in our perfect world, we want as many foreseeable cases to be dealt with as possible, in as clear language as possible. It's not that easy.
|
My initial impulse was to skewer your early post in this thread, but I am impressed that you have done very well at fielding (everybody's) thoughts on this.
The example of "no vehicles in the park" is really good, and to bring it nearer to, uh,
home I might draw a parallel between (the intended ambiguity in your examples) and (what is supposed to be)
routine, at-home recycling (which is not yet "routine" in all areas).
The pictures/diagrams they use in trying to guide us can only include so much, even though some individuals among us think
"it would be complete if only they'd tell us where to put ____________". Those diagrams being already rather "busy" to the eye. (though you have a year to study and familiarize yourself, before they change it again)
Or consider the multitude of bins at McDonald's. At least there is a finite number of menu item containers, and they can post the vast majority of those on the diagram. But then, at home, there aren't two people behind you and a guy in front of you trying to guess in which spot to put his
used syringes.
As for HISA... it's great in theory... and there is no way to reach a point where actual practice
matches theory without going through the minefield of being overly-critiqued and completely laughed at as things are ironed out.
HISA funds would be better invested in testing every horse after every race (vs. the more typical
test every winner, and three other, totally random horses on the entire card ) (using 8 fields of 8 average starters, that's 11 tested of 64).
The whip rules are so arbitrary that they are on the edge of meaningless, and the pure stupidity that is pretending the surrounding society will better accept horse racing sans whips
in noticeable fashion is just that.
Racing leaders have gone for decades without any inclination or interest in helping
themselves and that has been the central problem, not the lack of
the rest of society stepping in to somehow 'police' a sport which really doesn't need that much additional policing.
Add to it that most of those same racing leaders have now married themselves (and horse racing as well) directly TO the casinos which are in some ways "competition" (if no longer exactly competitive that way). Thus restricting any hope that racing might ever optimize the advantages it still holds.
In summation, HISA is doomed to be a significant waste of resources on every level, and a means through which a few people/interests who positioned themselves for near-term gain can extract a bit more from the system.
It was the same interest in near-term gain, back in the 1980's, which doomed horse racing to its present day fate, brought to you not by the government in any way, but by horse racing leaders themselves.
