The Spirit of the Law

[wellwisher]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

 

[Alien826]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

I'd say you are probably using Donald Trump's lawyers, and your conviction will most likely be delayed indefinitely.

 

[siti]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

My recommendation would be a quick slap upside the head to discourage stupid questions.

 

[Revoltingest]

.....there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years.

Unless stated otherwise, laws typically
have language that would include those
occasions under "anytime".

 

[HonestJoe]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

A judge isn't likely to ask you why you committed a crime so that specific situation is moot. If you told your lawyer that would be your defence, they should strongly advise against it as totally invalid and ridiculous. If you somehow had the opportunity to make that statement in court, you'd likely be corrected on your understanding of the law and have it pointed out that such a statement is effectively an admission of guilt. Essentially, your opinion of the law would be irrelevant and only actual legislation and evidence would be used to determine guilt (which again, if you'd be admitting the sequence of events as described, is pretty much guaranteed).

 

[Secret Chief]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

You should be assessed for mental illness.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

The judge would ask, did you steal it? If you answered, yes, then you will get the appropriate sentence. If you answered, no, then the case against you proceeds, and where you will probably be found guilty - if the evidence suggests such.

 

[wellwisher]

All these answers are what I would expect from people with common sense. The spirit of the law is not about word games and technicalities, such as excuses based on what is not yet specifically coded into formal law. It is about basic principles that are easy to extrapolate.

Let me change the scenario, using a similar spirit of the law example. Say crooked Constitutional Scholars, used a very similar iPhone defense. Their goal is to use Government to censor the free speech of their political opponents, in violation the first Amendment. They come up with a social media censorship word scam, since social media was not around at the time the Constitutional was written. This term social media its also relatively new and is still somewhat ambiguous. Like stealing the iPhone, the spirit of the law, in terms of freedom of speech is also based on common sense. This spirit of the law should not have been swayed by this unique superficial circumstance, that was not formerly part of written law. This assumes common sense was in control.

In this case, what happened, in real life, would have been similar to me, in the first scenario, being able to keep the iPhone and all the benefits from stealing the iPhone, on a technicality, until the courts made a final decision. In the end, nothing happens to me other than, in the future, I am not allowed to use that excuse again. It was added to the law voiding the technicality. I will now have to be creative and use something like an Apple A17 processor defense, to sustain the same spirit of crime, as long as needed, all with no punishment.

In the case of Constitutional Scholar crooks, maybe they can use a new national defense scam, or maybe even another taboo word game scam; from PC nouns, to trans pronouns, to now verbs. Any new word scam only has to lasts until after an inauguration, then it can be swept under the rug.

To me, non-lawyers may not know better. Their ignorance of the spirit of the law may be a partial defense. But if you are an educated lawyer, who earns a living doing law, who tries the same type of scam, there should be no excuses, but mandatory sentences. And if you are a proclaimed Constitutional Lawyer, and should know the most, you should get hard time to erase any ill gotten benefits, plus.

 

[PureX]

The purpose of having a judicial system is to adjudicate the laws. That means deciding when, how, and to what degree of responsibility they apply to any given circumstance. And such adjudication will never result in a "perfect" verdict. For we humans, perfection is an impossible ideal. So we can only do the best we can, and hope that will more or less suffice.

 

[dybmh]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

What should happen next depends on your age. This might be a valid excuse for someone who is very young or mentally/developmentally challenged.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Say I went into a TechStore and stole a new iPhone 15 Pro. I am caught by the store detectives. They call the Police and I have to appear in court. The Judge asks me why I did it? I tell him, there is no law that specifically says that I cannot steal an iPhone 15 Pro, on Tuesdays, on even years. Therefore, since there is no exact law, for what I did, I thought it was legal? What should happen next?

The cops will probably say your going to jail anyways. You still stole something in a store. Good enough reason for an arrest.

 

[osgart]

I would say the spirit of the law is to protect wealth and the wealthy, own the factors of production, and regulate the lives of the workers stringently so as to maximize profits for their owners. That's how politicians gain power secretly, while dumbing down the masses with empty rhetoric.