So, once again, I'm curious (dangerous hobby)...
There seems to be two aspects of laws governing human behavior, which is why lawyers are a necessary evil (though great fodder for humor).
There is the "black and white" aspect, or letter of the law, and all the shades of gray in between, known as the spirit of the law.
If you go by the letter of the law, then there tends to be no room for "special circumstances." Laws are interpreted literally, and with no room for any flexibility regarding circumstances.
If you go by the spirit, then the law becomes more open to interpretation, sometimes allowing special circumstances to reflect within judgements made.
There are of course pros and cons to both methods of approaching law. A good lawyer will know when to approach a case by the letter or by the spirit, and will do both as necessary (which is probably why most people find them so corrupt, because they don't stick to strict set of beliefs).
So, my questions are...
What do you think the pros and cons for each method is?
What do you think the best approach is, and why?
And of course, anything you want to contribute
related to the topic 