Interpretation of Law
An Essay by Justin D. Lowry
John Adams once said, "A republic is an empire of laws, not an empire of men." That is all government truly is laws. It collects taxes to pay for itself, provides defense for it citizens, and has laws to regulate these things.
If the law is seen as a living-breathing document, it implies that law should evolve with society. As new generations come up, their needs dictates changes to the laws. This model of interpretation also leads to inequality because they will change the laws and the punishments for crimes to appeal to different groups of people. If a poor man steals its fine because he is poor, but if a rich man steals, he is a greedy excuse for a human being. If someone who is criminally insane murders someone, its ok because they are insane, yet if a sane person murders someone, they are a murderer.
When law is viewed as set in stone, society revolves around the law. No changes need to be made, as people are the same now as they were when the laws were set in place. This could also lead to a more fair and just form of law. This is an interpretation of law that views all crimes equal. It does not consider people's backgrounds or circumstance. If a man steals, he has stolen something, regardless of his wealth.
I believe people should look at law, as it really is, protection instead of punishment. So many people avoid drinking and driving because of the punishment by law, instead of protecting themselves, as well as others on the road. Law works as protection by prevention by punishment. Laws protect people by preventing crimes by threat of punishment. You punish someone for theft to prevent others from doing it, thus protecting the citizens.