Spelling out the rules

[Souron]

The question was inspired by Alan Watts talk on Man and Nature. The podcast do not directly relate to the question however.

When and to what detail do you think it is appropriate to spell out the rules or laws?
Pros and cons of detailed laws to consider:
Cons:

• Sometimes spelling out the rules invites people to try to find loopholes. People feel more obligation to follow the intent of a rule, when the rule is not spelled out.
• Sometimes spelling out rules can lead to unintended exclusions that would be covered by a broader rule. For example the spelling out of the US Bill of Rights has effectively placed the right to bare arms above the right to privacy.
• Each situation is different, and spelled out rules often fail to account for every possibility. As a result, following the letter of a detailed law can often be unfair.
• Spelling out the rules can lead to an atmosphere of beurocracy in place of justice and equity.

Pros:

• There is greater equity when punishment is spelled out for each crime. Spelling out punishment also requires spelling out the details of each kind of crime.
• There is less ambiguity, so all parties are more apt to agree or follow a ruling against them if it comes directly from a spelled out rule.
• A bad judge is limited in his ability to make bad choices if he is bound by the letter of the rules.

 

[LightFang]

Simple Answer: It depends on the situation.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

[*]Sometimes spelling out rules can lead to unintended exclusions that would be covered by a broader rule. For example the spelling out of the US Bill of Rights has effectively placed the right to bare arms above the right to privacy.

Considering all the new security measures enacted in recent years because of fears of terrorism, I would say that it is indeed becoming more important to be allowed to wear short-sleeved tops -- or even sleeveless tops! -- than to be able to have private telephone conversations and protected records at libraries, Internet providers, and government agencies.

You may take away my right to not have every aspect of my life that leaves a paper/electronic trail inspected, but do NOT take away my right to roll up my sleeves!

 

[Harbringer]

The question was inspired by Alan Watts talk on Man and Nature. The podcast do not directly relate to the question however.

When and to what detail do you think it is appropriate to spell out the rules or laws?
Pros and cons of detailed laws to consider:
Cons:

• Sometimes spelling out the rules invites people to try to find loopholes. People feel more obligation to follow the intent of a rule, when the rule is not spelled out.
• Sometimes spelling out rules can lead to unintended exclusions that would be covered by a broader rule. For example the spelling out of the US Bill of Rights has effectively placed the right to bare arms above the right to privacy.
• Each situation is different, and spelled out rules often fail to account for every possibility. As a result, following the letter of a detailed law can often be unfair.
• Spelling out the rules can lead to an atmosphere of beurocracy in place of justice and equity.

Pros:

• There is greater equity when punishment is spelled out for each crime. Spelling out punishment also requires spelling out the details of each kind of crime.
• There is less ambiguity, so all parties are more apt to agree or follow a ruling against them if it comes directly from a spelled out rule.
• A bad judge is limited in his ability to make bad choices if he is bound by the letter of the rules.

Laws are by nature, or at least should be by nature dictated by your nations enviroment. If it is called for then laws should be very specific, if it is not then it is not.

 

[Brighteye]

Laws should always be precise, which requires being carefully worded and 'spelled out'. Subjectivity should be avoided when we want objectivity in our result, and since we certainly want law and justice to be objective (hence putting a blindfold on the personification of Justice), we should make laws precise.
If someone finds a loophole then we can very precisely close it.

Rules should only ever be left vague in informal situations where members of a small group will know each other and enforcement of the rules will be subjective anyway. This allows greater leeway for clemency in difficult situations.

 

[Souron]

Laws should always be precise, which requires being carefully worded and 'spelled out'. Subjectivity should be avoided when we want objectivity in our result, and since we certainly want law and justice to be objective (hence putting a blindfold on the personification of Justice), we should make laws precise.
If someone finds a loophole then we can very precisely close it.

Rules should only ever be left vague in informal situations where members of a small group will know each other and enforcement of the rules will be subjective anyway. This allows greater leeway for clemency in difficult situations.

So, in other words the degree of detail, should be proportional to the size of the effected group.

But you only address one of the cons of detailed rules. Care to address the others?

Also, are you then of the view that each crime, as spelled out by law, should have exactly one option of punishment of measured duration?

 

[Souron]

Laws are by nature, or at least should be by nature dictated by your nations enviroment. If it is called for then laws should be very specific, if it is not then it is not.

Can you elaborate? I have no clue what you are trying to say here.