RE: Week 6 debate topic - Spirit vs Letter of the law
I love that the debate is over letter of the law while simultaneously talking about the spirit of the debate.
So on to the debate lets start with the lawyers its quite clear that both spirit and letter are just tools to leverage when ever it suits their needs wether appealing to a judge for maximum penalty or imploring the jury that surely the spirit of the law was never meant to punish their client.
So should courts care about the spirit? Hell yes, in fact they are duty bound to that's how we get common law or case law as some call it.
Reasonable person is often a test in legal cases and in this case no reasonable person could believe that original legislation often decades (sometimes century's) removed from today can cover everything to the letter.
So all that is left is the spirit and sometimes in the name of justice even the spirit of the law must be challenged and discarded.
I like this idea of a reasonable person, because yes, any reasonable person in this day and age would interpret words differently then when the law was created a long time ago.
However, as @wwf points out, what a reasonable person is may indeed have been diminshed! This is funny in a way because we are discussing just this issue. In this case, it might be obvious that what a reasonable person is is up for debate!
What in the world is average care, skill and judgment in our modern world? That could be a low standard indeed, and so it may be important to take into account the spirit of this definition in order to use it effectively.
@wwf @skycae didn't know which to respond to.
Personally I don't accept the idea of that over time comparative standards has diminished either ethically or morally.
The law books are filled with obsolete and unjust legislations whos spirit at time of writing was acceptable by the moral standards of the day.
The list goes on highlighting what is arguably increased moral and ethical standards.
This super connected world we are in has increased awareness and empathy but media leads us to believe there is decay that there is a ganster on every corner and a pedophile at every window because for them if bleeds it leads and if its good its gone.
Then again perhaps my optimism exclude me from being a reasonable person
So it would depend on who is making the determination. Leaving a 'judge' to do that is one thing, but each individual also has the capacity to determine what is reasonable or not. That is where we each have a duty to make that determination and not leave it to others as that does lead to corruption. Nice argument!
the idea that we can know what a reasonable person would think is flaw in the face of corruption. And how often do we do the unreasonable thing, and defer to past judgments as reasons for upholding current even when it is outside the realm of reasonable judgment?
Your bring in the legal concept of 'reasonable person' into the debate. Well done. A 'reasonable person' is:
So how would this standard be used when, over time, that comparative standard has diminished on an ethical and moral standard? When Spirit has highlighted the highest moral and ethical standard, then how come use the reasonable person standard instead?