|
|
Posted by Richard Hirth on January 26, 19102 at 03:09:32:
In Reply to: question about a debate topic posted by Michele Lee on December 06, 19101 at 10:52:06:
Neg
When deciding laws, stability is required if fairness is ever to be achieved in any judicial system. The letter of the law should supercede the spirit of the law if a fair and just system is to ever be acquired. That’s why I must negate the resolution. Resolved: When in conflict the spirit of the law should supercede the letter of the law.
I would like to offer the following definitions to clarify my case.
Conflict- a clash (American Heritage College Dictionary)
Should-used to express obligation or duty, as opposed to its literal content
Spirit of the law- the General meaning or purpose of the law (Black’s Law)
Letter of the law- Literal content, the strictly literal meaning of the law rather than the
intention or policy behind it
Supercede-to take the place of
probity of life, which is fairness; fair play, justice, principle; grace. constancy;; incorruption, incorruptibility
Observation 1. The Affirmative Burden is to prove the resolution right in every case and as so in this resolution the affirmitive has to prove that the spirit of the law should supercede the letter of the law in every single case that there in conflict.
My core value for this debate will be societal welfare.
My value criteria for this debate is order. Without order in a society societal welfare will never reach full potential
Contention 1 the letter of the law provides a constant
Sub point A Laws that don’t change at the whim of a person is required to promote order in a society.
Sub Point B Who decides what the spirit of the law is? You cant have everyone running around deciding what they think the spirit of the law is because disorder would ensue. Laws shouldn’t be manipulated to fit one’s specific needs and having everyone deciding what the spirit of any specific law is will just manipulate that law at the expense of someone else
Sub point C The letter of the law allows for greater probity than the spirit of the law. The basis of a good society is a fair one and if the spirit of the law always supercedes then fairness will be impossible to achieve. By taking away the letter of the law your taking away the basis for even having that law. Laws should effect everyone equally and it is simply not fair if a law can change from person to person because how is anyone to know what is to be expected from that law. If every person is interpreting the spirit of that law differently then it’s not a law at all but just a lot of intentions. How can anyone be held to intentions and ever expect to be treated fairly.
Contention 2 if the spirit of the law overrules the letter of the law in the courtroom, then no law will be binding.
For example The constitution is a law, if everyone decides to only interpret the spirit of the constitution and not the exact words then the words in the constitution would lose their force, therefore if the laws in the constitution lose their force, the constitution would lose its force as well. If laws aren’t binding then order would cease to exist and societal welfare wouldn’t be provided for.
Contention 3 The letter of the law can be amended
If a law is proven unfit for some reason or the other it can be amended. A law being amended happens under controlled conditions but the spirit of the law can change with the single whim of the person enforcing the law which is not controlled at all. Having the law bend and change at the simple whim of a single person is foolish and will never allow for societal welfare because it doesn’t uphold fairness, probity or order