NationStates Jolt Archive

So, what I always do when people start talking about laws and being arrested and illegal actions, I tend to use legal definitions. Oh, who am I kidding - I always use legal definitions. Anyway, I encountered this statement:

No - you're not satisfying the legal definition of 'intoxicated' - that doesn't mean you are not intoxicated, because the word isn't limited to a legal definition.

Ok, so I was very puzzled at first, and was going to address it, but then decided it was best not to spin off a very interesting thread in a completely different direction.

So, I ask you, NSG, what are the merits and pitfalls of using legal definitions in thread arguments? In addition, why do our legal definitions not match our generally recognized (social) definitions?

So, what I always do when people start talking about laws and being arrested and illegal actions, I tend to use legal definitions. Oh, who am I kidding - I always use legal definitions. Anyway, I encountered this statement:



Ok, so I was very puzzled at first, and was going to address it, but then decided it was best not to spin off a very interesting thread in a completely different direction.

So, I ask you, NSG, what are the merits and pitfalls of using legal definitions in thread arguments? In addition, why do our legal definitions not match our generally recognized (social) definitions?

It depends. When one is talking about legal concepts, legal definitions make sense (but there may also be relevant lay meanings). When one is not talking about legal concepts, the reverse is true.

Of course, anyone wishing to deny the applicability of a legal definition will simply argue that the word has other meanings. On NSG, I have found this true even with terms like ex post facto and habeas corpus.

So, what I always do when people start talking about laws and being arrested and illegal actions, I tend to use legal definitions. Oh, who am I kidding - I always use legal definitions. Anyway, I encountered this statement:



Ok, so I was very puzzled at first, and was going to address it, but then decided it was best not to spin off a very interesting thread in a completely different direction.

So, I ask you, NSG, what are the merits and pitfalls of using legal definitions in thread arguments? In addition, why do our legal definitions not match our generally recognized (social) definitions?

When discussing the law, especially on what the law says, you need to use words the way the law uses them. Its merits are simple, you have a precise meaning and a precise definition. It cuts short overly emotive arguments that try to evoke certain feelings by the use of loaded words. "it's rape!" "it's murder!' "it's genocide!" for example.

Of course the problem with such is that...some people, have a tendency to, when you point out that they're using a word wrongly, have a tendency to then construct a strawman around it.

"Oh, so it's not murder, then I guess you're ok with it huh?"

I tend to use literary definitions, which is why I don't consider 9/11 to be a tragedy per se, but I don't think I'd get very far if I went around calling it pathetic.

So, what I always do when people start talking about laws and being arrested and illegal actions, I tend to use legal definitions. Oh, who am I kidding - I always use legal definitions. Anyway, I encountered this statement:



Ok, so I was very puzzled at first, and was going to address it, but then decided it was best not to spin off a very interesting thread in a completely different direction.

So, I ask you, NSG, what are the merits and pitfalls of using legal definitions in thread arguments? In addition, why do our legal definitions not match our generally recognized (social) definitions?
In the USA legal definitions, particularly in the criminal context (say drunk driving laws), have to be very precise and define the particular elements of the crime, so the accused can be aware of the exact charge and know how to defend his/herself. This is true even in the context of USA civil law where, similarly, a defendant has a due process right to know what the alleged tort, breach of contract or whatever is claimed.

The legal definitions in the USA can vary from state to state; in other words, what is considered "drunk driving" in one state, may only be considered "impaired driving" in another. Same is true in the civil law context.

Our social definitions do not have to be so precise as these legal definitions. Therefore, one gets more sweeping social definitions generally intended to encompass many forms of one idea (i.e., "drunk driving" encompassing both driving while intoxicated and driving while impaired). The problem comes in when one person is using a very precise definition, known only to him/her ("intoxication"), and another is using a different definition for the same thing, known only to him/her.

This situation generally does not arise where a legal definition is being used by people in the same state, but it does happen where the same legal definition is being used by people from different states, due to state-to-state differences in defining the term. I guess the same would be true with respect to the differences nation-to-nation.

That is the best I can do for now.

Legal definitions are usually defined for a reason, in regards to drunk driving, the defined limit is there because that is what the government believes counts as having insufficient control over oneself to drive.

Legal definitions are usually defined for a reason, in regards to drunk driving, the defined limit is there because that is what the government believes counts as having insufficient control over oneself to drive.
All I can say is that while legal definitions do define or proscribe conduct, they generally are quite precise in doing so, not just to advise what is permitted and what is not, but also for the reasons stated.

legal definitions they are Latin to me.