How Did The US Justice System Lose Sight of Intent?

Question

In the USA all that seems to matter is the letter of the law. This example demonstrates how a US law is being used for things it was never intended.

The British Justice System places a huge emphasis on the intent of a law. If a law is made to discourage one activity and you do somthing very similar (in a grey zone) the courts will likely convict you based on the intent of the law. Also if a law was intended to discorage one thing and you do somthing completely different that was not intened to be part of the law, but through some accidental wording includes what you did, the courts will very likely aquit you. Not so in America.

How did the court system in America become so different from their British counterparts with regard for intent?

Answer 1

I would point to the massive expansion of government regulation starting in the early progressive era, expanding even more in the 1930's and really exploding in the 1960's, expanding even more with the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terrorism". As it's turned out, while the initial roots were on the political left, the political right has embraced it as well. Bludgeoning ordinary citizens with the law is something both left and right wing mainstream US politicians can agree on.

Starting in the mid-1960's the incarceration rate started increasing and really took off by the mid-1980's.

Judges were, by law, given less discretion in handing out sentences. This came about for two reasons. First, some sought fair application of the law. They didn't want to see one person getting off with probation while another got 10 years, particularly when this difference seemed to be based on race. Other politicians didn't want to be seen as being "soft on crime" or wanted to be seen as "tough on crime". Therefore, mandatory sentencing laws were passed that killed a lot of judicial discretion that was the case previously.

Then, instead of cutting back on regulation, politicians chose to criminalize just about everything (see 3 Felonies a Day to see how this works). This allowed for harassment of political opponents, stifling of dissent and generally controlling the population. This, coupled with the curtailment of judicial discretion has led to the situation we have today, where intent doesn't matter as much.

Answer 2

I can't say that I agree with the statement that the US Justice System has lost sight of intent; We have the In Re Gault case where the law said that a boy would go to a reform school for several years for a crime that a grown man would get fined several dollars and spend a month or two in jail (charges of the top of my head.) You might quote Miranda VS Arizona as a case where the law was followed against common scene, but I'd argue that it was totally within the intent of the law; the constitution and all (well, most) of it's amendments are there to help secure rights. One of them, the 5th amendment states, one can only be tried with due proses of law, your "Miranda Rights" must be told to you at your arrest. If Miranda was charged, it would set a precedent saying that if the government wanted to frame someone, all they had to do was tell them fase rights or none at all, and try them with the evidence. The intent of American law was not to catch the bad-guys, but rather to let the good guys go. (A person can't face double jeopardy) This is a reason why many of the cases that have been ruled upon's rule seem so strange. Now that I've finished my little (long really) segway off topic, I will resume answering the question. In this case, I'd agree that the word of law as followed rather than the intent, but this is why we have many levels of law in the US. Though all states have a different justice system (needs confirmation), all have the many levels, and all allow you to challenge the ruling all the way up to the state Supreme Court. Even though this case was judged by the word of the law, some where up there someone will judge it (probably) by the intent of the law.

Answer 3

Intent actually is a very important principle in US law.

However, what you are linking to is not the actions of a judge, but the actions of elected District Attorneys. That is sort of a low-rung political position, that is often used as a springboard for higher office. The trick is to get your name in the news a lot, and for doing that nothing serves better than bringing controversial high-profile cases.

Few things in the USA are more controversial than abortion. The anti-abortion folks are a majority in some states, and exert political influence far beyond their numbers even when they are not, due to how motivated they are. Being seen as their political ally (particularly in conservative states like Indiana) can really jump-start a political career.

One of the latest tactics from the anti-abortion folks has been to use the legal system to try to push the concept that a fetus is a full-fledged US citizen. You can't (yet) do that for outright abortion, but you can often get sympathetic ears for other circumstances where a fetus is lost (eg: murder or abuse of the mother). This is just the next step in that process.

When it comes to a judge, I suspect you will find most of these cases losing (if not getting thrown out outright). However, in most municipalities judges are elected too...

Answer 4

You are asking a slightly biased question, by presuming that the UK justice system (unlike the US) is very fair and looks at intent and the poor old US has lost it's way and is now silly.

You are wrong, the UK justice system can be just as stupid aswell, just look at the ambulance driver convicted of speeding while transporting a liver for transplant ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17842413 )

(There are other example of extremely harsh sentances after the recent london riots for trivial things)

Answer 5

Your question seems focused on the intent behind the passage of a particular law. The difficulty with the "intent" of a law is how do you define it? Often times laws are passed and nowhere does it say "this law is passed for the specific purpose of doing X, or preventing Y." Even in situations where there is a passage in the law that says "this law's intent is to combat Z," that may not be trustworthy because the politicians that draft such language know that a court will look to that passage for the "intent." And, as society changes at what point do you no longer consider the intent of a law? For example, think of the "Jim Crow laws" in the US.

The intent of a law is rarely concrete, but what is concrete (basically) is the letter of the law. Now even a textualist like Antonin Scalia will try to figure out the intent if the letter of the law leads to an absurd result.

The point is that the intent of the law often looks clear to one person, but many times another person can marshal an equally strong argument that the intent is different in some way, so then you are left with the question of who wins.

Furthermore, you cited one case which definitely looks absurd on its face, but is not necessarily representative of the entire US legal system.