Many people can't imagine how what weev did is a crime according to the law, and comments in HN threads about legal issues seem to be based on the assumption that the legal system is a consistent set of rules, sort of like the axioms of mathematics, in which a certain question or problem is posed and by a correct application of the rules of the legal system it is possible to come to a definite conclusion about what the law says. However, there is an amazing paper which shows that in virtually every case, a "correct" application of law actually leads to different conclusions which contradict each other.
This excellent paper is by Karl N. Llewellyn and is called "Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decisions and the Ruled or Canons about how Statutes are to be Construed"[1] I once read almost the whole thing, and the following quote from the first page sums up his main point pretty nicely.
"The major defect in [the legal system] is a mistaken idea which many lawyers have about it—to wit, the idea that the cases themselves in and of themselves, plus the correct rules on how to handle cases, provide one single correct answer to a disputed issue of law. In fact the available correct answers are two, three, or ten. The question is: Which of the available correct answers will the court select—and why? For, since there is always more than one available correct answer, the court always has to select."
IIRC, he discusses the role of precedent as an important aspect of deciding how to apply the law, but also the ability of a judge to decide to overturn a precedent for a wide variety of reasons. He also discusses the role played by the intention of law makers when passing law, which is ultimately a subjective judgment made by a person, and which is not spelled out in the actual written law itself.
The paper is considered something of a classic, and I would encourage everyone to take a look at it.
This excellent paper is by Karl N. Llewellyn and is called "Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decisions and the Ruled or Canons about how Statutes are to be Construed"[1] I once read almost the whole thing, and the following quote from the first page sums up his main point pretty nicely.
"The major defect in [the legal system] is a mistaken idea which many lawyers have about it—to wit, the idea that the cases themselves in and of themselves, plus the correct rules on how to handle cases, provide one single correct answer to a disputed issue of law. In fact the available correct answers are two, three, or ten. The question is: Which of the available correct answers will the court select—and why? For, since there is always more than one available correct answer, the court always has to select."
IIRC, he discusses the role of precedent as an important aspect of deciding how to apply the law, but also the ability of a judge to decide to overturn a precedent for a wide variety of reasons. He also discusses the role played by the intention of law makers when passing law, which is ultimately a subjective judgment made by a person, and which is not spelled out in the actual written law itself.
The paper is considered something of a classic, and I would encourage everyone to take a look at it.
[1] http://mtweb.mtsu.edu/cewillis/Hermeneutics/Llewellyn%20on%2...