Law: Letter vs Spirit

 Note: The following article was written by Ivo Gray Y11

Within any human society, we are controlled by three things. Law, morality, and social norms; these are not separate or individual, and connect in some ways while being distinct in others. But on the whole, as a society, these are the things that control us. 

For the aforementioned former, law, there is often discussion of the distinction between the “letter” of the law (read: what is explicitly written down in the books as what is and isn’t legal) in comparison to the more broad and commonly understood by the layman “spirit” of the law (read: the intentions whoever passed the law had with it). Famous examples of this disparity nearly always fall back on (like the vast majority of conversations in the English language) Shakespeare. More specifically, they call back to his "Merchant of Venice”, in which Shylock the money lender gathers a contract in which he is promised no more and no less than “one pound of flesh”. His attempt is defeated when a defence is perfectly presented that explains to get one pound of flesh and nothing more, he’d have to remove this pound of flesh without spilling a drop of blood.  This is perhaps one of the best ways to explain the concept of this disparity. 

But now let us look at it in practice, and use the relevant example of the rules and codes of conduct of this very institution, the one hosting this blog. The rules and conducts of Watford Boys Grammar School are our one example of the topic for this debut article. 

For instance, did you know that the school policy is to provide guidance and concern to any pupil who has their attendance fall under the magic number of ninety. That at that number, that the Attendance Officer “communicates with parents to highlight concerns when attendance is falling”. From surveys of mine own and the experiences of others, some who have fallen dramatically far from this magic total, this does not often happen as written. And yet we all manage to come to school regardless, the vast majority every day and on time. It is clear the intention of the rule, that is to show concern and assist those who have specific issues in attendance, while on the books it describes a stringent numerical requirement. 

But that could be circumstantial. Let’s go a bit further. There are a lot of fascinating rules in the school’s codes, such as the Asbestos Policy or Anti-Radicalisation regulations. But these do not have as much prevalent usage as for us to see them used enough to properly compare intent and usage. For instance, did you know that “Breaches of the mobile phone code are liable to incur significant sanctions, including detentions, confiscation of devices and complete bans from having a mobile phone on the school site (even if turned off).” This one is particularly fascinating, as quite often you will see and hear people on their phones get off with a verbal warning. Despite not explicitly being described in the rules, the same effect is had in the vast majority of occasions, in that the student being warned is likely to put their phone away and move on. This leniency calls into the third pillar of society I called upon earlier. 

Social norms. When a student is warned purely verbally, without any written warning, without anything on the record, there is a silent agreement about how the affair must immediately stop, that we understand from having gone through the motions so many times before. It is the threat of punishment that allows social norms to form. People tend to take offence when they see someone commit what they believe to be a crime, even if it does not affect them in any way. It is this curious connection that allows for things like social cohesion. Let’s take an example of what is known in sociology as third-party punishment. Even if it doesn’t affect you in any way, humans tend to try and enforce a feeling of fairness. When someone cuts in front of a queue, even if you’re in front of them and therefore it doesn’t affect you, it is still exceptionally likely for you to try to do something about it. Because you’ve learnt that cutting in a queue brings punishment, and if people are punished for something, human nature therefore assumes that it is wrong. If you raised a little boy who was told off whenever he stacked one chair on top of another, it is doubtless he would tell other people off if he saw them doing so. It is the punishment for breaking the law that makes our brains properly conceptualise it. In other words, the exception proves the rule. But this comes from the spirit of the law. If we’d been punished by a law that prevents putting four legged things in the same space as each other, but had only ever observed it in a way that stops chairs stacking on each other, we would conceptualise the spirit of the law to be about chairs, due to our lived experience. The human mind doesn’t try and imagine the letter of laws as we learn about them. Do you think “Gee, I sure hope that guy wasn’t in charge of a vehicle while above the legal limit (107 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine in England, less in Scotland) or generally unfit through drink”, or do you think “Golly, he looks like he’s drunk-driving”?

So, we have examples of the disparity versus spirit and letter, and we understand what makes us understand the law in the sense of spirit vs letter. Let’s put this to the test, to see what wins out in the courts, between the two. In 1889, New York, New York (a very fun sentence to write purely for how many commas are in it), there was a lawsuit between a married couple and their nephew. The nephew had, upon discovering his grandfather had left all his estates and wealth to him in his last will and testament, killed the man. No law existed at that time suggesting murdering someone changed their will in any way. The court case became so contested and intense, that they decided to invoke the spirit in order to stop the nephew getting his way, coming up with a new ruling that a killer can inherit nothing from his victim. 

Is that what you expected? 

The thing to note is that even if you memorise every law, and find every loophole, the lawmakers won’t run out of ink. If you exploit the letter of the law, they’ll pull down the spirit, and vice versa. There’s little point trying to trick, cheat, scheme or play with it, considering the imbalance of power.