Laws that lack definition can be undemocratic

Laws that lack definitions make money for lawyers

Politicians and law makers must be precise.

In Britain the law courts interpret the written laws passed by Parliament, they also create “laws of tort” which is where a decision made in one court enables a later court judgment, to use that decision as a precedent.

If laws were more precise, if words were actually defined in the law with wording that is agreed by Parliament, judges would have to follow the law as written. All judges would have the same interpretation of what the words mean. Courts would automatically become more consistent. The argument that judges have to have flexibility to react to different circumstances in each case; is outdated. The sheer number of trials now can mean some end up without true justice. There is also the time factor. If everyone knew exactly what each word and phrase meant, the court would get to a result much faster.

For example, the changes to UK highway code

The Highway Code now advises cyclists to ride in the centre of lanes on quieter roads, in slower-moving traffic and when approaching junctions.

What is slower-moving traffic? Is it 5 kph? 20kph? If you travel on the A12 off-peak you would normally drive at 70 Mph so then, slower moving traffic is vehicles going at 40 Mph so without definition, this rule is potentially dangerous.

What is a “quieter road”? A rural lane? A housing estate street at 11am? The A12 at midnight?

If the cyclist has a different interpretation of “quieter road” than a truck driver --- it is going to cause accidents. A rural lane may only be 10 to 12 feet wide, with no walkways, no pedestrian paths. So, 2 or 3 cyclists riding side by side chatting to each other or head down racing each other, are going to be going head on into approaching traffic- which may be a “Transit” size van. Electric vehicles will not be heard above the noise of the cyclist’s chatter so even if the vehicle stops before the impact; there will be a collision.

Definitions are essential. When will politicians and bureaucrats get to understand that these ill-defined or non-defined rules just make money for lawyers? If a law is passed through parliament without precise definition for all active words, the lawyers can get paid for endless arguments about what a word or phrase actually means. There are lawyers who sit as members of Parliament, the government has legal departments so they could save courts time and people money, but they choose not to. Why? This can only be speculation but could be those who could do this, wish to evade the responsibility, or it could be they like to see lawyers employed. It is up to the government who draft a law to ensure that the end result, as interpreted by the courts, is precisely what they intended. To do this the law has to be precise in every detail.

So many rules are too vague. Hate crimes? What is hate? One person’s dislike can be another’s hate. Discrimination, prejudice, and bigotry are words which are used but each is actually a description of actions or attitude, and the description is comparative. The specific action or attitude can be normal and acceptable so some, while also being disgraceful and reprehensible to others. Without precise definitions how are law enforcement agencies supposed to know who’s opinion matters? Or far more importantly, which opinion the law makers intended to be enforced.

In Britain such decision, as to whose opinion matters, is often left to the courts. Then it is the judge’s opinion that matters. Thus, a small group of people who have similar education, training, and experience, get to impose their opinion on all the people. Hardly democratic and potentially able to subvert the intentions of an elected body, who have a mandate from the electorate.