Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!dave From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Newsgroups: net.flame,net.legal Subject: Re: legal definition of practice of medicine Message-ID: <848@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 15-Oct-85 13:19:45 EDT Article-I.D.: lsuc.848 Posted: Tue Oct 15 13:19:45 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 15-Oct-85 13:54:32 EDT References: <10573@ucbvax.ARPA> <376@mot.UUCP> Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 60 Summary: comment on legal drafting and imprecision In article <376@mot.UUCP> al@mot.UUCP (Al Filipski) writes: > Maybe if lawyers were required to >take a course in computer programming, they might use language >with more precision(:-). Many drafters of statutes create unintentional structural ambiguities due to careless use of words like "if", "unless", and so on. Layman Allen (now of U of Michigan Law School) has written extensively on structural ambiguity in the law, and is finally being listened to, at least in some parts. A former student of Layman's, Grayfred Gray, is now the drafter of statutes for the State of Tennessee, and the state is now enacting statutes that follow Layman Allen's "normalized" drafting techniques, including indenting, capital letters for key syntax words like IF, and so on. Layman has had a standing bet for years that he can pick up any statute, open it up to a random two pages and find a structural ambiguity. He never lost the bet until I challenged him on the Income Tax Act of Canada last summer. We spent half an hour poring through the sections he opened the book up on, and I'm still waiting for him to get back to me and show me the unintentional ambiguity. (Which says something about the drafting of the Income Tax Act.) (Which also says something about why my specialty in law is tax, I suppose.) > Or, maybe their INTENTION is to make it >sound like everything is illegal so there is more opportunity >to create case law. Or, maybe the above definition DOES mean >something, but I don't understand the words. Is it too much to ask >that a literate person should be able to go to the library and >look up whether something is legal or not? The drafting which was quoted (definition of practising medicine) isn't particularly good, but it's an example of intentional ambiguity rather than unintentional ambiguity. You're close to the mark when you say "so there is more opportunity to create case law". In fact, at the time legislation is drafted it's often very difficult to predict the strange and novel fact situations which will emerge. Therefore, you use relatively loose language (semantically, not syntactically or structurally!) and leave it to the courts to interpret the language in the context of the facts of the case and the times in which the case comes up. >Titillating Part: Especially amazing are the laws relating to sexual >conduct: they are riddled with phrases like "crime against nature", >"moral nuisance", "lewd behavior", etc. instead of saying exactly what >you are allowed to do with exactly what parts of your anatomy. Again, what's considered lewd or a moral nuisance at one time and in one part of a jurisdiction (particularly in a large jurisdiction such as Canada, which has one Criminal Code for the whole country) may not be so at a later time or at a different place. It's left to the courts to interpret the law in the context of the times. Dave Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave