Quote:
Originally Posted by zerospinboson
Hm. I could be mistaken, but isn't it the job of the legislators to fix loopholes, rather than juries/judges etc.? 
Because I can assure you that as soon as judges, juries, etc. start interpreting the law 'liberally', there will be people whining about "judicial activism", and how that is even worse than "dumbness"; never mind the fact that the case will be dismissed by a judge on appeal because of technical improprieties.
It's all well and good (and above all oh so very convenient) to rail against "dumb" <something>, but it really helps if you at least get the group you want to be railing against straight. |
Firstly, my comment about dumb juries etc was done with tounge mostly poked in cheek. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Secondly, the loopholes will never ever be fixed. Why? Because the law is an idea that must be expressed. Laws must be written and the written word can always be interpretted, debated, changed and manipulated.
There is the spirit of the law and there is the letter of the law. In many instances the latter is used to twist the former. Hence why mega wealthy people rarely ever pay much tax, often times legally minimising their tax and just as often illegally doing so, and why the tax department rarely bothers going after them. They have the lawyers who are experts in twisting the letter of the law to get around the spirit of the law.
So in short, when I see lawyers knowingly twist the letter of the law in order to abrogate their clients responsibilities under the spirit of the law, and I see judges and juries falling for that crap then yes, I will say they collectively bear some responsibility for the situation.
Cheers,
PKFFW