Why don't laws have a Applicable Situation and Intent section?

[GWestphal]

It seems like a Applicable Situation and Intent section for laws would take the interpretation factor out. I'm referring to a the case where a judge has ordered a defendant to decrypt their computer under the interpretation that a law that requires mobile operators to comply with federal surveillance applies to this situation.

Precedent is a retarded concept in law in the first place. Each situation should be treated as a blank slate, not a see and stamp situation. It seems like it denies due process of law by applying the unique situation of another case to the outcome of your situation.

Additionally, when judges willfully/stupidly misinterpret a law. They should get a free trip to prison. Maybe that would make shit real enough for them. It seems "Don't tread on me" has lost its fangs and its venom. A judge should be allowed to decrease punishment if they see fit under the circumstances, but they should never be able to apply additional punishment from unrelated laws.

The same thing could be applied to police officers. You are no better than any other citizen. You being killed in action is no less egregious than an old lady being killed, in fact less so, because of the nature of your CHOSEN occupation has inherent risk. Not to say it isn't a tragedy, but they should be treated no different, including having their word taken over that of a citizen. Evidence should be required. Willfully suppressing the rights of citizens should be treated with extreme prejudice. You assault a law abiding citizen because you don't like that he is making you show a warrant to search his vehicle and also attempt to turn off recording equipment. Well that is assault and it is a felony (destruction of evidence may also be a felony), so you lose your job as well.

This should go for our politicians as well. They work for us, not the other way around. Some people say show respect to these public officials, but they show no respect for us. Gabriel Giffords being shot was a heinous situation, but why is it more heinous than a bell ringer being shot? Why does a politician not go to prison for an offense, when an average citizen would? This kind of bullshit needs to stop. The Republic is being gamed and has been starting after WWII, but now they are just open about it.

 

[jackschmittusa]

I'd love to see an intent section. It might keep laws from expanding.

Here in Ohio, "possession of criminal tools" originally meant crowbars, sledge hammers and such used for burglaries. It grew to include rolling papers and pipes. In a scenario such as a dispute in a home, while brandishing a fireplace poker, you order someone into a another room (even for their protection) you can be charged with kidnapping because you forced someone to go somewhere against their will.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Laws will always be apply in their broadest possible sense if it grants a power to the authorities. That is I believe a key principle addressed in how the Constitution was designed, which grants rights to people and limits on government. However the obvious way around that is to do the same with the Constitution as is done with legislation. There seems to be a lot of that about.

 

[Patranus]

Intent should be irrelevant.
The only person who knows the intent in the criminal and if you include an intent provision it gives too much power to the courts to make stuff up that could not exist similar to hate crime legislation.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Intent should be irrelevant.
The only person who knows the intent in the criminal and if you include an intent provision it gives too much power to the courts to make stuff up that could not exist similar to hate crime legislation.

He means the 'intent' of the law. Not the criminal/suspect.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Intent should be irrelevant.
The only person who knows the intent in the criminal and if you include an intent provision it gives too much power to the courts to make stuff up that could not exist similar to hate crime legislation.

I don't think that you realize how far this would go if intent of the 'criminal' was irrelevant in all instances.

 

[Pantoot]

I don't think that you realize how far this would go if intent of the 'criminal' was irrelevant in all instances.

Mens rea used to be a foundation of a guilty verdict. Today it means nothing.

 

[woolfe9999]

The OP had nothing to do with mens rea, i.e. criminal intent. It's off point for the thread.

I won't respond to the OP's entire rant here, except to note that many laws DO have an intent and situation section. They don't all have it, but the recent trend is that more and more of them do. Particularly federal statutes. Pick the last 5 major pieces of federal legislation. They probably all have it.

On the separate issue of judicial precedent, the OP badly misunderstands how it works. Past precedent only applies where the past case is the same as the present one in every way that is relevant for application of the law. Irrelevant dissimilarities are just that...irrelevant. But relevant dissimilarities preclude the application of the precedent.

 

[GWestphal]

Well that might be how it works in theory, but you can see from the example provided that it is not that way in practice. Applying "compliance in wiretapping" to "give us your password" are two very different things.