442
LOL
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
442 points (100.0% liked)
Political Memes
5447 readers
2898 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Basically there’s this piece of legislature regarding nonviolent drug offenders that will spare them from longer sentences so long as they do not have on their record conditions: A B, and C
The key issue being that “and” is written right at the end of condition B
The debate is basically over whether that means they cannot have A, B, AND C on their record collectively, or if it was intended to mean they cannot have A, cannot have B, AND cannot have C - as in they cannot have any one of them
Or perhaps alternatively, they cannot have either A, or B AND C together
Basically the wording is shit - likely intentionally, but it’s also probable that whoever wrote this is just dumb… Par for the course either way, really
Hope that wasn’t too complicated… I’ve made like 6 edits to this comment trying to clear it up as best I can lmao
That was well explained and blows my mind a court is wasting any time on that.
Here we have the convention when drafting legislation that the conjunction 'and' at the end of a list it means all things in the list- so A, B, and C. Whereas if 'or' appears, it means a choice from the list.
I get that maybe once upon a time there needed to be clarification in the courts, but that cannot me the first time such a drafting approach has been taken in legislation in the USA and so an interpretation must have been established already?
I can see why contextually there could be room for either interpretation, but it's astonishing a consistent interpretation hasn't been established.
Like I said, it was likely made intentionally vague - either with malicious intent or to give wiggle room for this exact sort of legal debacle while still getting the legislation passed
Or, again, whoever wrote this is stupid
It’s really a coin toss for either option