spirit of the law vs letter of the law

[Thedrin]

My knowledge of US atmospheric phenomena is not complete, but I don't think that photo was taken at 2am.

 

[ace99]

 

[Quintillus]

spirit > letter

the former is the "reason" for the latter

This.

The reason for having speed limits, in spirit, is that it's believed that driving faster than that will be deterimental to either yourself, or other drivers. The state of Montana attempted to put just that into their laws, defining the speed limit as a "reasonable and prudent" speed. But that was found to be unenforceable, so now the speed limit is 75. But really, that letter of the law, of 75 mph, is merely there so the spirit is enforceable.

And in practice, other things are factored in to speed limits. Politics - speed traps being a prime example, but lower-than-expected limits in general often fall in to this. And the lowest common denominator - you might put the limit at 60 based on the middle of the night in the rain, but it may well be safe at 85 in the day when it's sunny out. Since you need a limit to be enforceable, the limit may be below what's "reasonable and prudent".

The circumstances would obviously vary in this case as to the details. Headlights, road conditions, a number of factors. I'm voting assuming that the conditions are favorable - good brights, low traffic, limited-access highway, little wildlife, etc. I think it's certainly possible that 80 mph is reasonable and prudent in various cases.

Within the U.S., Utah and Texas both have roads with 80 mph speed limits, and Texas has a road with an 85 mph speed limit. I don't know if these are all in the desert, but the point is that some authorities believe there area areas where this is safe as well. Not to mention the Autobahn, which has worked fairly well for many decades.

On a proper road, with sufficiently low traffic, I think it's also quite possible to drive safely at 75 mph at night, having done so in places such as Kansas, where it's perfectly legal. Maybe I just have really good night vision, but if it's 2 AM and you're in the middle of nowhere, it's quite easy to keep a track of everyone on the road. If anyone is approaching your blind spot, you've either seen them coming in the rearview mirror for miles, or they're on an on-ramp, at which point you should be expecting that possibility. Even an abandoned car should be visible well in advance such that it can be avoided, if the weather is not inclement.

Edit: Can we spoiler the large images plz?

 

[timtofly]

This.

The reason for having speed limits, in spirit, is that it's believed that driving faster than that will be deterimental to either yourself, or other drivers. The state of Montana attempted to put just that into their laws, defining the speed limit as a "reasonable and prudent" speed. But that was found to be unenforceable, so now the speed limit is 75. But really, that letter of the law, of 75 mph, is merely there so the spirit is enforceable.

And in practice, other things are factored in to speed limits. Politics - speed traps being a prime example, but lower-than-expected limits in general often fall in to this. And the lowest common denominator - you might put the limit at 60 based on the middle of the night in the rain, but it may well be safe at 85 in the day when it's sunny out. Since you need a limit to be enforceable, the limit may be below what's "reasonable and prudent".

The circumstances would obviously vary in this case as to the details. Headlights, road conditions, a number of factors. I'm voting assuming that the conditions are favorable - good brights, low traffic, limited-access highway, little wildlife, etc. I think it's certainly possible that 80 mph is reasonable and prudent in various cases.

Within the U.S., Utah and Texas both have roads with 80 mph speed limits, and Texas has a road with an 85 mph speed limit. I don't know if these are all in the desert, but the point is that some authorities believe there area areas where this is safe as well. Not to mention the Autobahn, which has worked fairly well for many decades.

On a proper road, with sufficiently low traffic, I think it's also quite possible to drive safely at 75 mph at night, having done so in places such as Kansas, where it's perfectly legal. Maybe I just have really good night vision, but if it's 2 AM and you're in the middle of nowhere, it's quite easy to keep a track of everyone on the road. If anyone is approaching your blind spot, you've either seen them coming in the rearview mirror for miles, or they're on an on-ramp, at which point you should be expecting that possibility. Even an abandoned car should be visible well in advance such that it can be avoided, if the weather is not inclement.

Edit: Can we spoiler the large images plz?

While I agree with this, I would like to point out that the speed limit does not take in all variables. It is the maximum speed -5 to 10 miles capable under the best conditions. That limit is reduced by all other factors.

There will be people who do 5 over, and that incorporates the "spirit of the law". The spirit of the law is the margin of error between what is posted and the posibility of injury occuring.

An officer can choose to uphold the law and issue a ticket, or just offer a warning thus keeping in the spirit of the law and showing mercy on the guilty party.

 

[History_Buff]

Letter before Spirit, except in very select cases.

One of the pillars of the justice system is that it should be very predictable. So if there's a clear law that says You Shall Not Go This Fast, and you go That Fast, you deserve a ticket, even if it is unjust. If the law is unjust, the responsibility lies with citizens and legislators to change it.

I'd also point out that speeding at night at all is a pretty bad idea, regardless of the environs. There is actually a relatively scientific process for setting speed limits; most of the time they aren't just arbitrary. They are sometimes lowered, but it's because residents complain until local limits are lowered, not as some sort of cash grab.

But to undermine my own argument, there are always exceptions for outcomes that would be comically unjust. But they need to be examined on a case by case basis, and the outcome has to be pretty damned unjust before exceptions are made.

 

[Berzerker]

If the law is unjust, the responsibility lies with citizens and legislators to change it.

thats where the spirit of the law enters the picture, cops get to decide when enforcing the law would be unjust

 

[Old Hippy]

thats where the spirit of the law enters the picture, cops get to decide when enforcing the law would be unjust

but shouldn't that be with judges, who's actual job is to interpret the spirit of the law, and apply penalties, or not, as the case may be...

at least then the citizens and legislators can make changes (up or down) as the situation demands, not really possible if the decision is made at 2am, in the dark, on a lonely road...

 

[cardgame]

It's up to the cops to bring it before a judge via enforcement.

Example: Spirit of anti-drug laws: minimize harm to self and others (meth is bad kids)

Cop sees teens smoking pot, doesn't do anything because it isn't harmful

 

[Old Hippy]

It's up to the cops to bring it before a judge via enforcement.

Example: Spirit of anti-drug laws: minimize harm to self and others (meth is bad kids)

Cop sees teens smoking pot, doesn't do anything because it isn't harmful

good in theory, but what about all the people that are brought before the law... if you justice system depends on luck... well bad luck happens too...

 

[Borachio]

It's up to the cops to bring it before a judge via enforcement.

Example: Spirit of anti-drug laws: minimize harm to self and others (meth is bad kids)

Cop sees teens smoking pot, doesn't do anything because it isn't harmful

This puts an incredible amount of power in the hands of the cop on the street.

I'm not saying they don't, or shouldn't, have this sort of power. But are you comfortable with it?

 

[Silurian]

This puts an incredible amount of power in the hands of the cop on the street.

I'm not saying they don't, or shouldn't, have this sort of power. But are you comfortable with it?

Well everyone is guilty of some minor crime at some time.

The police have to exercise some judgement.

 

[Mise]

There are really two questions here and I think they have different answers. There is the legal question of "should you be punished", and the answer is yes, you should, because otherwise you risk undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system as a whole. This is a matter of policy. Ideally, all laws should be written so as to exclude any doubt or ambiguity, and it should be enforced to the law's fullest extent. If we want to allow people to drive at 80mph on an empty road, then we should write that into the law (it would be very easy to do that actually, though enforcing/prosecuting would be rather more expensive and less predictable). Otherwise, we shouldn't be surprised or insulted if we are punished for exceeding the speed limit.

Second there is the moral question of "is it immoral". I think that, in general, it is immoral to break the law per se to the extent that it is immoral to violate the social contract between you and everyone else in society in which you agree to adhere to the law in return for the protections afforded by the law. Whether it is immoral to commit a specific action is dependent on the action, but any action that breaks this social contract is immoral to the extent that it breaks the social contract.

In the case of going 80mph on a road that you know with a very high certainty is empty, the act it self is not immoral. You are not putting anyone in danger (other than yourself), so I can't see it as an immoral act. Breaking the law is still immoral to the extent above, but the act itself is not immoral.

And don't be pedantic here, just because there is a 0.00001% chance that the road is not empty doesn't mean it is irresponsible or immoral to act under the premise that it is empty. Indeed, if the law were to be rewritten to exclude "empty roads" in the speed limit, then it would be for the courts to decide whether it was irresponsible, reckless, negligent, etc to drive under the premise that the road was empty. Would a "reasonable person" believe the road empty? What probability is required? These are all matters that go back to the legal policy question above. It is clearly possible to acknowledge a small risk of something bad happening, while not at the same time acting irresponsible. If a doctor performs an operation with a 1% risk of the patient developing complications and dying, that doesn't make the act irresponsible, and we would not want to punish the doctor for performing the operation. That's why we have different levels of intent in law, to account for this...

 

[Farm Boy]

Cops already are the gatekeepers of the criminal/fine system. They always have the power of non-enforcement, that really isn't something that can be easily taken away. What you should be more concerned about, if you are looking for lines to be uncomfortable with, is how far does the discretion go the other way.

 

[Old Hippy]

In the case of going 80mph on a road that you know with a very high certainty is empty, the act it self is not immoral. You are not putting anyone in danger (other than yourself), so I can't see it as an immoral act. Breaking the law is still immoral to the extent above, but the act itself is not immoral.

And don't be pedantic here, just because there is a 0.00001% chance that the road is not empty doesn't mean it is irresponsible or immoral to act under the premise that it is empty. Indeed, if the law were to be rewritten to exclude "empty roads" in the speed limit, ...

a totally reasonable post, including the snipped bit,

but the main focus of our road safety campaign at present is on getting people to slow down and obey road rules, letting local country people off speeding tickets is actually not a kindness... they already think they know the roads and conditions, yet continue to plough into trees and poles

Country road users
People in regional and rural Victoria are three times more likely to die and 40 per cent more likely to be seriously injured from road crashes.
Nearly 70 per cent of fatalities on Victoria’s country roads are local residents.
Drink driving fatalities are nearly three times higher in rural and regional Victoria.
Around a third of all fatalities on country roads are when a single vehicle leaves the road and hits a tree. 30 per cent of the fatalities on country roads and 60 per cent of the serious injuries occurred in large and small provincial cities such as Bendigo, Ballarat, Shepparton and Warrnambool.

Link to video.


Link to video.

 

[warpus]

Spirit over letter, because you will find loopholes in every written word, if you look hard enough.

 

[timtofly]

Spirit over letter, because you will find loopholes in every written word, if you look hard enough.

That's why we use 75 vs. 80? Fewer loops?

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess if I had to condense this into an easy peasy answer... uh, letter over spirit but rational release valves must be both in place and used to abort the travesties of justice that inevitably arise from strict adherence to a code.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yes, because a pedestrian crossing the road at 2:00 AM is going be trusting the speed limit.

 

[Camikaze]

The speeding example is not really a good one, because giving you a ticket and giving you a warning but no ticket are both options within the letter of the law. Police have discretion, but that discretion has parameters that are written into the law. A police officer cannot unilaterally decide to completely ignore a crime, but police (or prosecutors in the case of indictable offences) can choose whether to proceed with charges. Whether the police officer warns you or fines you, both are okay according to the letter of the law. They will have regard to the spirit of the law, but that doesn't mean they aren't having regard to its letter.

There is discretion built into pretty much every level of the criminal justice system, and to be honest, I'd much rather give more room to judges, and less to police.

 

[timtofly]

I'd rather pay the fine, than fight before a judge, so it seems like a win win situation to me, especially if I only get a warning.