Should laws be required to be written with literalness and a one-for-one relationship with physical events

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • We have this tool called language let's use it appropriately, let's stop being vague

    For something as important as the law there should be no use of metaphorical or emotional language (example: "Crime against nature"). And the law should be written with a one-for-one relationship with physical events. No abstract terms that are not then defined in a concrete manner that makes it perfectly clear under which circumstances they would apply and which ones they wouldn't. Terms like "material support" should specify exactly what counts as material support. Phrases like "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person" are vague. These all leave too much room for interpretation. For instance what is "substantial emotional distress".

    Furthermore laws should require intent. What if a person has irrational emotional reactions? Could a person chewed out online for their racism or homophobia argue in court that the person caused substantial emotional distress by criticizing their views? For an example of an even more absurd emotional reaction say someone gets sad everytime they see the word "green". That's totally irrational and probably would be labeled as a mental illness but it happens, not everyone is sane and the law doesn't seem to require the emotional distress to be reasonable or sane. Even if it did the words "reasonable" and "sane" don't clarify things enough. Laws should be specific so people who take the time to read the laws don't run the risk of accidentally breaking them. It doesn't matter that most people won't take the time, those who do take the time deserve the advantage of knowing what the law is and they can't have that advantage when laws are written vaguely.

    For something as important as the law, as the instructions for the legitimate use of force within a society we should act with the utmost care. Not a single shred of vagueness should be allowed in lawmaking.

  • Literality is an ideal worth striving for, but in practice, is utterly impossible due to human biases.

    Optimally, the Law would be strictly based on a quantitative approach rather than the current qualitative one. Regrettably, all statistics can be manipulated to meet the objective of the individual or group; presenting and utilizing them to their own ends. Furthermore, whom would establish the universals needed to achieve a one-for-one relationship with physical events as you say. Do those individuals who construct these relationships have purely altruistic motives; this is impossible. All human beings have personal bias and motive. If the Law was quantitative in construction, then the murder of a homeless man would carry the same punishment as the murder of a billionaire or politician. Until such is the case, achieving the utopian ideal stated above will never ever happen.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.