1 |
Simon Stelling wrote: |
2 |
> Right. So you agree with the intention, but not with the wording. This |
3 |
> is exactly what I'm after. At least here in Europe, judges have to |
4 |
> 'interprete' the law. They judge whether somebody is guilty or not based |
5 |
> on the _intentions_ that are behind the law. If the law has flaws in its |
6 |
> wording, nobody cares about it, because the _intentions_ are important, |
7 |
> not the wording. |
8 |
|
9 |
That's one reason I would like to greatly simplify the "laws" around |
10 |
here -- less opportunity to argue that the wording doesn't explicitly |
11 |
prohibit something that's obviously wrong and/or stupid. |
12 |
|
13 |
Thanks, |
14 |
Donnie |