Criminal trials carefully lay out how the state believes the actions of the accused meet each required element of the crime. They don’t get to say “Foo definitely killed Bar. The law intends for people to not kill each other, and Foo meant to, therefore Foo is guilty of 1st degree murder.” Rather, they have to prove Foo’s actions met all required elements of the charge.
If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. If you fail to stop for a school bus displaying red stop lights, your intent doesn’t matter.
I think the IRS step doctrine is relatively rare in legal interpretations, but at a minimum, it’s not “every other law is interpreted that way”.
I don’t take a position on Microsoft’s actions here, other than “if it can be shown to be plainly compliant with the law as written, I’m uncomfortable with the law being changed during interpretation such that it’s deemed to be non-compliant.”
Huh? In both of these examples, intent 100% matters. If I rear ended you because I had a medical emergency vs I was texting on my phone vs I had a bout of road rage and wanted to kill you vs I know who you are and you’re sleeping with my wife so I followed you from work to try to kill you:
All VERY different levels of potential punishment based entirely on my intent.
You're absolutely right that overt intentional assault is different than an accidental collision.
Bullshit. If you intended to do it, it’s something like assault or attempted murder. If you didn’t, it’s likely a civil traffic ticket and an insurance claim.
SCOTUS precedent permits use of legislative intent to resolve ambiguously worded legislation, too.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_v._Southern_Pacific_Co...>
> The rule that penal statutes are to be construed strictly does not permit such a construction as defeats the obvious intention of the legislature.
What do you think a legal test is?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_(law)
The canonical example of this is a restauraunt banning all head coverings. Despite the fact that technically everyone must adhere to it, since it disproportionally affects those who wear hijabs, it's considered a violation of civil rights.
These tests are created to help lower courts navigate grey areas, negligence is an area where this is applied a lot.
The facts do matter when you are judged, laws aren't code. The only reason taxes are the single exclusion to this rule is because there's a massive amount of money to be made. You are not bound to the same justice system as them.
That's just a fig leaf.
Sometimes people screw up on their taxes, etc.
Intent, and communication, do matter.
In both cases it is up to the judiciary to make the trade-off/judgement.
