Dictionaries are NOT "binding" law

[Theunicornhunter 2]

ARRRGGHHH - The title should say are NOT binding law

 

Several times I have seen people quote a dictionary as support of their point of view = while that may be helpful - there are cases where that is irrelevant.

 

And one of those situations is in deciding legal situations. In legal matters written statutes and case law are the basis of definition - not a dictionary.

 

As for ongoing meaning of words I often see - you can always find a different dictionary that says what you want. But I usually just shake my head at those because a term often has an implication that the dictionary text may not imply. And, in interpersonal communication a dictionary term is irrelevant - if you both know what the other meant.

Edited April 3, 2005 by TheUnicornHunter

[joeybear 0]

i posit that dictionary definitions should NOT be used substantively - i also find differing meanings with difffering dictionaries, which may mean linguistic bias, and most definitely (ahem) means DON'T QUOTE...

[trekz 7]

There are many different, and many specialized, dictionaries. All of them attempt to give accurate definitions. The Oxford English Dictionary is a huge multivolume dictionary which often gives the time period with examples of usage of different words. Even the OED doesn't have everything. There are also slang dictionaries. Most important of all is the fact that language is changed by usage. New words are added to languages all the time and some words or certain usages become obsolete. Technology adds new words to languages all the time. Dictionaries add new words. Language is ever changing, thus dictionaries are hard pressed to completely accurately depicit language and usage, although they do a pretty good job, imo.

Edited April 17, 2005 by trekz

[Yillara Skye 1]

I can pretty much only echo what has been said by trekz and joeybear. Dictionaries can be used when helping clarifying the meaning of something you say(which I have done in the past on this board as well as others) but I definately can say that should not be used in legal situations to support a point of view. And thus should not be considered "binding" in a law case, on the grounds that they are changing these books on a regular basis.

 

Not only changing, but often times will not contain the same words as another dictionary. Not the greatest example, but an example nonetheless. When I was younger I had a dictionary and noticed it did have the word "android" in it, and when I went to the bookstore(because my dictionary was old and was quite beat up) I looked in the books and noticed that several of them that were supposedly newer editions did not contain that word. I thought it was odd, that one dictionary had it and another 6 did not. And "android" was not the only word I noticed missing, however at this point now nearly 12 - 15 years later I cannot recall the other words that I had a list of.

[Odie 0]

I use the dictionary as a starting point in my understanding of a word. But than, where would I get the defination of a word other than a dictionary?

Edited April 17, 2005 by Odie

[KIMIMELA 1]

:) exactly, odie, .

[Theunicornhunter 2]

You guys have totally missed the point of my post.

 

Again, you can't use a dictionary to clarify a legal term or situation.

 

Two, you can't argue the "semantics" of a word when you and the person you're arguing with both really know what you meant.

 

At best words are only reprentations of ideas and also remember that communication actually consists of two parts:

 

1. the information (statement) you're conveying AND

2. how you feel about that information - this is often achieved with expression, tone of voice etc. You can not resort to a dictionary to wiggle of this one. If you yelled - you yelled - the dictionary wont' change that.

[Odie 0]

If I want to look up a legal definition I would use a law dictionary, which is very through in its definition of legal terms that is currently being used in the legal profession. They come in multi-volumes that are found in any law library. For which I have spent many hours in for the two legal classes that had to take in college. The dictionary is not law binding, but is still necessary when a term needs to be defined and put into practice in the legal system. Without it anyone can interpret any legal terms as they may, and would bring the courts to a stand still.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Odie, a legal dictionary has very little affect on our courts. Any issue that would be tried in a court will rely on the definition established either by statute or case law (or both).

 

Legal dictionaries are okay if you have a personal reason like a class to research a term. But if you have a legal issue then you really need to talk to a lawyer.

[Odie 0]

Yes, and that lawyer would use a dictionary to make sure that legal terms that are applied are used correctly to the situation. If the term is not used correctly the results might cause the client to loss the case. My ex-boyfriend’s father is a lawyer and the first thing he does when he has a new case is to hit the law dictionary. Everything in the legal profession has to be accurate, because there are lives on the line. One word that is used wrong in case can send someone in jail if they are innocent of the charges. It doesn't set law it defines the words that make up the law. Here is my favorite legal term that you can most likely and only find in a legal dictionary: habeas corpus.

 

habeas corpus

Click For Spoiler

(hay-bee-us core-puss) n. Latin for "you have the body," it is a writ (court order) which directs the law enforcement officials (prison administrators, police or sheriff) who have custody of a prisoner to appear in court with the prisoner to help the judge determine whether the prisoner is lawfully in prison or jail. The writ is obtained by petition to a judge in the county or district where the prisoner is incarcerated, and the judge sets a hearing on whether there is a legal basis for holding the prisoner. Habeas corpus is a protection against illegal confinement, such as holding a person without charges, when due process obviously has been denied, bail is excessive, parole has been granted, an accused has been improperly surrendered by the bail bondsman or probation has been summarily terminated without cause. Historically called "the great writ," the renowned scholar of the Common Law, William Blackstone, called it the "most celebrated writ in English law." It may also be used as a means to contest child custody and deportation proceedings in court. The writ of habeas corpus can be employed procedurally in federal district courts to challenge the constitutionality of a state court conviction.

 

If the lawyer doesn’t know this definition their client would lose rights in court that would have made sure that their arrest was legal.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Yes, and that lawyer would use a dictionary to make sure that legal terms that are applied are used correctly to the situation.  If the term is not used correctly the results might cause the client to loss the case.  My ex-boyfriend’s father is a lawyer and the first thing he does when he has a new case is to hit the law dictionary.  Everything in the legal profession has to be accurate, because there are lives on the line.  One word that is used wrong in case can send someone in jail if they are innocent of the charges.  It doesn't set law it defines the words that make up the law.  Here is my favorite legal term that you can most likely and only find in a legal dictionary:  habeas corpus. 

 

habeas corpus

Click For Spoiler

(hay-bee-us core-puss) n. Latin for "you have the body," it is a writ (court order) which directs the law enforcement officials (prison administrators, police or sheriff) who have custody of a prisoner to appear in court with the prisoner to help the judge determine whether the prisoner is lawfully in prison or jail. The writ is obtained by petition to a judge in the county or district where the prisoner is incarcerated, and the judge sets a hearing on whether there is a legal basis for holding the prisoner. Habeas corpus is a protection against illegal confinement, such as holding a person without charges, when due process obviously has been denied, bail is excessive, parole has been granted, an accused has been improperly surrendered by the bail bondsman or probation has been summarily terminated without cause. Historically called "the great writ," the renowned scholar of the Common Law, William Blackstone, called it the "most celebrated writ in English law." It may also be used as a means to contest child custody and deportation proceedings in court. The writ of habeas corpus can be employed procedurally in federal district courts to challenge the constitutionality of a state court conviction.

 

If the lawyer doesn’t know this definition their client would lose rights in court that would have made sure that their arrest was legal.

319328[/snapback]

 

An attorney that had to look up the meaning of habeaus corpus shouldnt' be practicing criminal law. In fact, a practicing attorney who has been in the business for any time should be familiar with the terms applicable to his/her field.

 

The example that brought this up was another posters use of the term of euthanasia. In the US the Supreme Court does not recognize removing a feeding tube as murder - regardless of how a dictionary defines it - it'sn not legally murder.

 

Odie, this discussion has become pointless - there is nothing you can say that will change my mind so we might as well let it drop.

 

One last example: Black's gives a long definition of marriage beginning with "legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife." It does not tell you how old the parties have to be, who can perform the ceremony, or what blood tests or other requirements must be met for the union to be "legal" - for that you have to consult controlling law.

[Odie 0]

The only thing a law dictionary does is define the terms that is used in the law, legal code, and major court decisions. Nothing more. It is just one of many different tools that the legal profession uses in the daily workday.

[trekz 7]

ARRRGGHHH - The title should say are NOT binding law

 

Several times I have seen people quote a dictionary as support of their point of view = while that may be helpful - there are cases where that is irrelevant.

 

And one of those situations is in deciding legal situations.  In legal matters written statutes and case law are the basis of definition - not a dictionary. 

 

As for ongoing meaning of words I often see - you can always find a different dictionary that says what you want.  But I usually just shake my head at those because a term often has an implication that the dictionary text may not imply.  And, in interpersonal communication a dictionary term is irrelevant - if you both know what the other meant.

315179[/snapback]

 

 

You guys have totally missed the point of my post. <_<

 

Again, you can't use a dictionary to clarify a legal term or situation.

 

Two, you can't argue the "semantics" of a word when you and the person you're arguing with both really know what you meant. 

 

At best words are only reprentations of ideas and also remember that communication actually consists of two parts:

 

1.  the information (statement) you're conveying AND

2.  how you feel about that information - this is often achieved with expression, tone of voice etc.  You can not resort to a dictionary to wiggle of this one.  If you yelled - you yelled - the dictionary wont' change that.

319315[/snapback]

I agree with you Unicorn Hunter. Written statutes and case law are the basis of a legal definition, not a dictionary. The way you say something is indeed important, and so is the fact that both parties understand and know what the other meant.

Sorry if my comments on dictionaries led the discussion astray. :angry:

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I agree with you Unicorn Hunter.  Written statutes and case law are the basis of a legal definition, not a dictionary.  The way you say something is indeed important, and so is the fact that both parties understand and know what the other meant.

Sorry if my comments on dictionaries led the discussion astray.  <_<

319404[/snapback]

 

Not a problem - who would have thought we could have so much discussion on dictionaries.

[Takara_Soong 4]

From working in a law firm for a number of years I can tell you that lawyers can spend a lot of time pouring through statutes and case law looking for precedents. That is basically what the law is about - precedents. The courts interpret the law and make rulings which become precedents for future rulings.

 

I can also tell you that during the entire time I've worked in a law firm, I've never consulted a legal dictionary nor has any lawyer I've worked for. The only reason a lawyer or his/her secretary would have to use one is if to see how to spell the term but not for definitions.

[Odie 0]

So if there is term that someone had never seen before would that person look it up in the dictionary?

[Takara_Soong 4]

The only thing a law dictionary does is define the terms that is used in the law, legal code, and major court decisions.  Nothing more.  It is just one of many different tools that the legal profession uses in the daily workday.

319386[/snapback]

 

The only difference between a legal dictionary and a "regular" dictionary is a legal dictionary will have a few more terms that are specific to the legal field. They do not list legal codes or court decisions. Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but a publisher will have only one version of legal dictionary for an entire country.

 

The law firm I work at has its own law library that has at least a thousand books in it. Of all of these books, there are 3 or 4 legal dictionaries at most. The rest are books that contain legal statutes, regulations, codes, court rulings, forms precedents, etc.

[Odie 0]

The thing I am trying to say, and somehow I am not doing a very good job at, it just used as a tool to look meaning of terms not define the law. The law library at the school I went I was lost for a day. :angry: :angry: I was very lucky I packed a snack that day. <_<