Hacker News Reader

Comment by sandworm101 | Hacker News Reader

"Spirit of the law" is a myth. It is something invented by non-lawyers when they want to gloss over something, normally when they dislike how a law is written. Calling for people to comply with "spirit" is simply a call for some arbitor to enforce thier interpretation, thier opinion on spirit. We have judges for that already. Spirit is a dogwhistle for non-lawyers to be involved ... but we have that too. Non-lawyers, elected officials, write and pass the laws. Blame them.

View on HN

Intent of the law might be a better term, but it is clear that intent of the law makers does matter when it comes to court cases trying to decide the actual extents a law can be applied. Even the most legalese specific law can have major gaps depending upon how you read certain words. I've read court cases where judges had to go back to when a law was written, look at other laws, look at how the law was originally applied, and then take this all into account when determining if a specific action was legal or not under such a law.

That is judges looking to "drafter's intent" to interpret the language used, something often necessary with very old/new laws. It is a standard tool. Spirit is different, grounded not in language and history but in lay opinion and emotion.

IIRC, in Europe it's harder for companies to exploit letter-of-the-law loopholes than in the US. So I think you do have a point, but there's more nuance in practice.

The US obsession with loopholes and "letter of the law" is a historical religious thing. US is protestant, where the language of the bible is made availible to all. Everyone is free to read and invent an interpretation, to find thier own loopholes. Europe follows a more catholic tradition, where biblical language is interpreted through priests. Hence, european judges (legal priests) are given more authority to interpret language and smooth out rough edges. It is centuries-old culture.

Ah yes, Martin Luther, that famous American. Who can forget when he inspired President Henry VIII to break with the Catholic church!

The distinction I’ve heard is called Roman law (continental) versus common law (UK, its colonies and empire).

Exactly, the UK being home of one of the largest protestant traditions (COE). The specifics of biblical language and translation is a cornerstone of English political and legal history (see Henry VIII and associated fiascos).

But when people speak of European colonial law v common law, they are normally talking about French v. British. The Napoleonic tradition followed in former french colonies is very different than the British common law. And there are places (Louisiana and Quebec) where these two legal traditions were forced to merge. When comparing the two we still see the catholic v protestant split, which is expected given the history. The french relationship with language, that there is a government agency to define words, also leans towards a more authoritarian view of legal interpretation. America today doesn't even have an official national language.

There's loopholes, but there's also boundaries. In Europe there is scope creep where the boundaries of what's legal versus illegal keep getting redefined. A good example is antitrust enforcement against Google. In the U.S., antitrust is pretty clear cut. In Europe, it's this amorphous thing, where regulators can fine you just because what you're doing rubs them the wrong way.

The European system is better at keeping up with the evolution of crime. The US is generally a step (years) behind.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com