Should the interpretation of law be strict or loose?
Law can be understood differently by a different variety of people who apply if different whether it’s strictly, loosely and everything in between. I believe that the interpretation of law shouldn’t be really strict, but shouldn’t be very loose at the same time. I believe that the interpretation of law should be in the middle of strict and loose. If the interpretation of law is loose, then people will just go around it and find their way out. If it’s strict, then there would be no way out of it and maybe have bigger un-needed consequences. Let’s say the law is ‘No smoking in the park’, the judge can see that law either strictly, or loosely. If an average Joe is walking by the park smoking and gets a fine for it, the judge can see it in 2 ways- strictly and loosely. If he sees it strictly, then Joe is going to have to pay the fine because it may have still been on the public park premises. But if a judge see’s this loosely, then he can say that it wasn’t exactly in the park so it doesn’t count. I believe that in that situation it still count’s that Joe was smoking in the park because he was still by little kids who can inhale the smoke, but I believe that the judge should have gave him a warning to drop the cigarette when walking by the playground, and not make him pay the fine. That sounds fairer.
In the 1890’s, there was a famous trial Plessy Vs. Ferguson where Plessy attempted to sit in an all-white railroad car. Plessy refused to sit in the all-black railroad car in which he was arrested for. He was arrested for violating the 1890 Louisiana law “Separate but equal” which means the whites and blacks are equal but they are separate. Justice John H. Ferguson found Plessy guilty on the grounds that the law was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police powers based upon custom, usage, and tradition in the state. Plessy filed a petition for writs of prohibition and certiorari in the Supreme Court of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document