Philosophy Now Forum

Assuming courts have the power to use any rule of interpretation (golden rule , mischief rule , purposive rul etc) which interpretation should be chosen the one in favour of the accused , the one in favour of the victim or the one in favour of the purposes of the lawmakers/drafters ? which is more ethical ?

Superb question, can be extrapolated, without losing its essence, to the moral sphere, assuming that isn't implied already.

Scratch that out ...

Might wanna use a microscope for an answer to your question. What else can you do with an arrangement of lenses inside a iron/steel frame? Light up yer life with a book/audio/video.

BobThorne wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:43 am Assuming courts have the power to use any rule of interpretation (golden rule , mischief rule , purposive rul etc) which interpretation should be chosen the one in favour of the accused , the one in favour of the victim or the one in favour of the purposes of the lawmakers/drafters ? which is more ethical ?

Which one is chosen; or which one should be chosen?

It gets interpreted in a way that doesn't make the legal system implode and trigger a sequence of appeals; or mistrials.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:13 am

BobThorne wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:43 am Assuming courts have the power to use any rule of interpretation (golden rule , mischief rule , purposive rul etc) which interpretation should be chosen the one in favour of the accused , the one in favour of the victim or the one in favour of the purposes of the lawmakers/drafters ? which is more ethical ?

Which one is chosen; or which one should be chosen?

It gets interpreted in a way that doesn't make the legal system implode and trigger a sequence of appeals; or mistrials.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

No one posted a reply to the OP's question. Any ideas, why?

BobThorne wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:43 am Assuming courts have the power to use any rule of interpretation (golden rule , mischief rule , purposive rul etc) which interpretation should be chosen the one in favour of the accused , the one in favour of the victim or the one in favour of the purposes of the lawmakers/drafters ? which is more ethical ?

At this level of abstraction it's hard to be sure. But in general if the law is ambiguous and one of the plausible interpretations mean the defendant did not break the law, the government has to back off. This isn't fair to the victim, and perhaps the government, having messed up, should then try to compensate the victim, since the government is in part responsible.

I can easily imagine if we zoom in to particular contexts, their might be factors that would change my position, but that's a general reaction.

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 10:15 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:13 am

BobThorne wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:43 am Assuming courts have the power to use any rule of interpretation (golden rule , mischief rule , purposive rul etc) which interpretation should be chosen the one in favour of the accused , the one in favour of the victim or the one in favour of the purposes of the lawmakers/drafters ? which is more ethical ?

Which one is chosen; or which one should be chosen?

It gets interpreted in a way that doesn't make the legal system implode and trigger a sequence of appeals; or mistrials.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

No one posted a reply to the OP's question. Any ideas, why?

The fundamental problem is the inability/unwillingness of moderators to impose intellectual discipline upon their forum. I suppose they would justify this by arguments appealing to "freedom of speech". So, like kids allowed to run wild, contributors are not required to be relevant, or courteous, or even demonstrate their ability to pass the Turing Test.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 1:11 pm The fundamental problem is the inability/unwillingness of moderators to impose intellectual discipline upon their forum. I suppose they would justify this by arguments appealing to "freedom of speech". So, like kids allowed to run wild, contributors are not required to be relevant, or courteous, or even demonstrate their ability to pass the Turing Test.

What is this 1950? The Turing Test is no longer relevant.

Any system which fails the Turing Test on purpose is necessarily smarter than the entity performing the Turing Test.

alan1000 wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 1:11 pm

Agent Smith wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 10:15 am

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri May 05, 2023 8:13 am
Which one is chosen; or which one should be chosen?

It gets interpreted in a way that doesn't make the legal system implode and trigger a sequence of appeals; or mistrials.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

No one posted a reply to the OP's question. Any ideas, why?

The fundamental problem is the inability/unwillingness of moderators to impose intellectual discipline upon their forum. I suppose they would justify this by arguments appealing to "freedom of speech". So, like kids allowed to run wild, contributors are not required to be relevant, or courteous, or even demonstrate their ability to pass the Turing Test.

Good points despite the fact that I'm staring up the barrel of that gun. Scale up ... down ... yer free choice ... I see an extraordinary person ... gender unknown ... perhaps for the better!