Talk:Letter and spirit of the law/Archive 1

Seems slightly biased?

The article seems to present the "spirit" side as being more favorable than the "letter". Surely there are arguments in favor of the "letter" as well? For example, the "spirit" cannot always be accurately determined, or may not be understood by all parties affected by it. 216.36.188.184 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

AGREED. change it, wikipedians! 212.64.106.232 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

COMPLETELY AGREE. This equivocating nonsense continues the unethical trend by some of attempting to undermine the rule of law and diluting the Constitution, by giving broad, interpretative powers to the arbitrary whim of magistrates, a la Richard Posner and his ilk. It is reprehensible. If someone wants to argue this phony "activism" then let them do it, not represent it as settled "law" (or lack thereof). Wikibearwithme (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Spirit of the Law Definition Just Not Feasible

The author defines the Spirit of the Law as what the law's author had "intended". It is impossible for every law enforcement officer to know what each law's author "intended" for a specific law. The Spirit of the Law would better be described as "officer's discretion." The officer reviewing a scenario, at times, has the discretion to determine whether mitigating circumstances justify the unlawful behavior. An example might be someone rolling and not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign. Upon stopping the driver, the officer finds a panting pregnant woman in the passenger's seat. That officer has the discretion to not write a ticket. He is enforcing the spirit of the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DollarCardMarketing (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Spirit of the Law definition is feasible. The intent of "The Law" is the protection of the people and society. The "intent" of "a law" IS the law. If the intent is not clear then the law is unenforcible. We stop at stop signs so that traffic can proceed predictably and so;safely. In the example above the motorist clearly violated the letter and observed the spirit of the law. Likewise the officer. Never the less "The Law" is observed because the intent is observed.

Further, legislative intent is usually clearly stated in the form of its legislative notes, appended to statutes as bills are passed, and from transcribed discussions when legislative bodies are in session. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.183.165 (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If the letter is enforced without regard to intent the "The Law" has been violated in its enforcement and cannot be considered valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.59.221.3 (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as biased.

"Following the letter of the law but not the spirit is also a tactic used by oppressive governments." This strikes me as biased. It can work both ways as when an oppressive government persecutes people based on reasons other than actual violation of laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.234.57 (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Not so biased

I do not find this article to be biased so much as under-sourced, and perhaps somewhat out of balance. Perhaps. Maybe not. It presents certain issues and observations regarding the topic, and the issues are clearly relevant. It does not "resolve" the issues in favor of a point of view: not "biased". The observations are what they are, and are on the mark, but they are not the last word, nor the only word, and are not presented as such.

The topic of this article requires a give-and-take process of presentation. The point of the topic is that there is tension and conflict between the "letter" and the "spirit", never resolvable simply in favor of one or the other. Other editors above have discussed the "feasibility" of enforcing the spirit of the law. As pointed out, the spirit is in fact incorporated into legal systems, just as the letter is. There is such a thing as judicial discretion as well as an officer's discretion. Legislative intent is one principle that is argued about in some cases, but it is not the only kind of intent useful in considering the application of law to a specific case, and not the only origin for intent that is valid for consideration.

The working-out of the inherent tensions and conflicts between letter and spirit is in fact a prime mover of legal forces on all sides in trying to resolve individual cases, and it is built into most legal systems - that is, the place where law is applied rather than the place where it is enacted or written down. That application of law is just as much a part of "law" as the written code itself. It's where "the rubber hits the road", for it is the place where legal interpretations are made. And every law requires interpretation when being applied; without interpretation, no application is possible.

Individuals arguing about law may do so in an unbiased manner, presenting one side and the other of conflicts, much as encyclopedia writers do. And they may also take positions, arguing for one side or another, as they generally do in courtrooms. It is a given that there are sides and points of view in interpretations. It is also a given that consistency, taking always the side of "letter", or taking always the side of "spirit", does not result in generally recognizable consistency in interpretation of the law, for example and counter-example can and do exist for each in individual cases, violations of which would widely be seen as miscarriages of justice.

Legal systems, therefore, generally find it necessary to achieve balance in practice, emphasizing "letter" in one case, "spirit" in another, in order to attempt a reasonable resolution of issues overall. And of course, there is almost always a dissenting side, another way to look at things. That is the nature of the law, and the nature of this topic, and the sort of balance that is needed in presenting the topic in this article. We as editors won't be taking sides, but we must always be aware that there are sides to take, and overall they all need to be presented, without overemphasis on one side over the other. There is no avoiding viewpoints, but there is also no reason for actual bias - taking sides in the presentation. If the article is not perfectly balanced at present (of course it isn't), then that merely points out that there is useful work that can be done. But at present, I'm not especially seeing bias itself. I'm going to remove that tag. Evensteven (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Spirit of the Law or Law of the Spirit?

In the article "Letter and spirit of the law" the focus is basically a world view. "The letter of the law versus the spirit of the law is an idiomatic antithesis. When one obeys the letter of the law but not the spirit, one is obeying the literal interpretation of the words (the "letter") of the law, but not necessarily the intent of those who wrote the law. Conversely, when one obeys the spirit of the law but not the letter, one is doing what the authors of the law intended, though not necessarily adhering to the literal wording."

When the Law is discussed Biblically it is usually referring to the Law of Moses. This Law is not misunderstood Biblically. It came with blessings by living it out completely. Anyone that failed to do so was cursed. The spirit of this law was and is all or nothing at all. Jesus proclaimed that he did not come to do away with the law but to fulfill it by living a perfect and obedient life on behalf of all of mankind. Man could and cannot live out this life. God sent His son to do it on our behalf. Romans 8 best explains this concept. Romans 8:1-4 (NASB) Deliverance from Bondage 8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Note that this translations and most others do not speak of the Spirit of the law. It speaks of the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. The reference is not in understanding the real purpose of the Law. The Bible expresses in many places that the purpose of the Law is to convict us of our sinful nature. And it does. The Law cannot forgive us or save us. But Jesus can and does by taking on the punishment that is due us so that we can live free of the burden of sin and death. Jesus fulfilled the requirement of the Law. We have been set free of that burden.

The author does quote a Biblical scripture that uses the language of the Spirit, but not of Spirit of the Law., The verse the author uses is about the Spirit of the new covenant. 2 Corinthians 3:6 (NASB) 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This verse should be read in context. 2 Corinthians 3:4-6 (NASB) 4 Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

So the understanding of the Letter of the Law of sin and death is that sin leads to death. Jesus said this: Matthew 5:18 (NASB) 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

The problem is not about misunderstanding the Law. The problem is misunderstanding our nature as sinners in need of a savior.

In closing. The author goes on to examine worldly understandings of Law, quoting many sources of worldly understanding.

Here is the wisdom of the sovereign God, the maker of you and i, as proclaimed by the Apostle Paul: 1 Corinthians 1:18-24 (NASB) The Wisdom of God 18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the cleverness of the clever I will set aside.”

20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For indeed Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, 24 but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

THB27616 (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Jewish perspective section?

There should be a Jewish perspective section in this article. Deuteronomy 6:18 is the Biblical basis for the Jewish perspective:

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/beyond-the-letter-of-the-law/

http://rabbisacks.org/the-right-and-the-good-vaetchanan-5775/

2001:569:BC0E:B100:C98C:941C:4FB6:5A85 (talk) 04:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see a section in this article addressing the question of "letter of the law" versus "spirit of the law" as it applies to the field of science.

Is there a sense in which the "spirit of science" permits speculation beyond the realm of the known or the knowable? There may be more to existence than can be observed under a microscope. A strict "letter of the law" interpretation of scientific methodology would suggest the answer is no. But if the point of science is to know the truth, and if there is more to existence than can be measured by the senses, the truth would never be known if the letter of the law were all that mattered. Please don't dismiss this point as a creationist argument. I am not a creationist and I don't worship any gods. 2600:8801:B011:300:B476:15BC:C586:94B1 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC) James.