The Letter Versus the Spirit of the Law - part 1

The Letter Versus The Spirit of The Law THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW Abstract 2 Recent literature has detailed the growing importance and prevalence of social norms and fairness in American society. In this paper, we propose The Letter Versus The Spirit of The Law Model as a medium for understanding the relationship between the law, social norms, and fairness in society. With the five tenets of this model, we highlight various scenarios in which the letter of the law or spirit of the law may be breached. We hypothesize that it may be unfair to violate the spirit of the law, even if the letter of the law has not been violated. Throughout our presented studies, we tackle this hypothesis, and more, as we define and analyze the letter and the spirit of the law. THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law 3 You are hungry and choose to dine at your favorite restaurant. You parallel park across the street from the restaurant, but rather than crossing the street at a crosswalk, you decide to “jaywalk,” taking the direct route from your car to the restaurant. As you prepare to enter the restaurant, you hear a siren and are approached from behind. A policeman taps you on your shoulder and informs you that jaywalking is a crime, punishable by a fine and mark on your criminal record. You stare blankly in disbelief, crying out that you meant no harm and that the punishment is not fair. Alas, the policeman states that you clearly violated the letter of the law, hands you a ticket, and disappears. You shake your head – the letter of the law? There may be a law against “jaywalking,” but there were no other cars on the street and you have witnessed thousands of other individuals commit this “crime” over the course of your life. How can this be fair? In the present analysis, we introduce The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law Model to understand people’s perceptions of fairness when being penalized for breaking the letter of the law. We draw upon the literature on social norms to construct the theoretical framework of the model and harness a decision-making methodology to instantiate the tenets of this model. We conjecture that people may think it is unfair to violate the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law, approving punishment for such an offense. While this model contributes broadly to our psychological understanding of the law, it simultaneously makes a significant contribution to the field of behavioral law and economics (Jolls, Sunstein, & Thaler, 2000), where the study of social norms and the law is becoming increasingly more important (Ellickson, 1998). THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW Defining The Spirit of The Law: A Social Norm Perspective 4 The letter of the law can be defined as any formal code, rule, regulation, or principle that must be followed according to governmental mandates or policies. In short, it is the law as it is written. In the United States, such letters of the law range from “stop at a stop sign” to “do not murder another person.” All these laws are in place to serve, maintain, and protect the public welfare in various ways. What is more complicated, however, and not codified is the spirit of the law, which we define as a social and moral consensus of the interpretation of the letter of the law. Because social norms generally reflect social and moral consensus, we turn to the literature on social norms and the law to further expand on the spirit of the law. We will begin this discussion with a question – how does one decide in which manner to act, dress, eat, or do any other daily task? One answer is through social norms, or as Bicchieri views them, “the grammar of society.” Bicchieri (2006) defines social norms as “the language a society speaks, the embodiment of its values and collective desires, the secure guide in the uncertain lands we all traverse, the common practices that hold human groups together” (p. ix, Bicchieri, 2006). In this sense, social norms act like roadside guardrails on life’s highway, guiding human behavior through various circumstances. These same social norms also guide our behavior when following or not following the letter of the law (Brennan & Buchanan, 1985; Coglianese, 1997; Coleman, 1990; Posner, 2002). It is these very social norms that embody what we mean by the spirit of the law, which, conceptually, is distinctly different from the letter of the law, as defined above. We can perhaps best understand the distinction between the letter and the spirit of the law through our proposed model displayed in Figure 1. THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW Figure 1: 5 Letter of Law Buffer Zone Spirit of Law In this case, the left-most vertical line represents the letter of the law, whereas the spirit of the law is located at some distance away from the letter of the law toward the right side of Figure 1. Because the spirit of the law is constructed by social norms, and social norms are inherently linked to legitimacy (Horne, 2009; Tyler, 2006), it is important to note that the horizontal distance between the letter and spirit of the law – the buffer zone – varies in size depending on the social norms for the pertinent law. For example, take two contrasting laws: capital murder and jaywalking (see Figures 2 and 3 below). Figure 2: Murder Letter of Law Spirit of Law Figure 3: Jaywalking Letter of Law THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 6 Buffer Zone Spirit of Law Social norms would arguably consider a law against murder to be absolutely legitimate, important, and inviolable, whereas social norms regarding jaywalking would be less legitimate, less important, and more readily violable. Consequently, in the case of murder, the buffer zone would be virtually, if not completely, non-existent, whereas the buffer zone would be very large in the case of jaywalking. Thus, because social norms differ depending on each particular law, the severity of the action being prohibited, the context, the culture, etcetera, so too will the buffer zone between the letter and spirit. However, it important to note that even in cases where the letter and spirit are perfectly aligned, as in capital murder, the letter and the spirit are nevertheless conceptually distinct. Social Norms and Fairness While social norms are influential in determining the distance between the letter and the spirit of the law, namely the buffer zone, the extant literature on social norms and fairness (e.g., Amir, Ariely, & Mazar, 2008; Bazerman, Loewenstein, & White, 1992; Bicchieri & Chavez, 2010; Blount, 1995; Fehr & Fischbacher, 2004; Garcia & Miller, 2007) also suggests that social norms shape our interpretation of fairness. More specifically, this THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 7 literature suggests that the perception of fairness depends on whether or not a social norm has been violated. Thus, to the extent that social norms are violated (i.e. receiving a speeding ticket for driving 1 mile over the speed limit), societal perception of fairness will differ. An example of this link between social norms and fairness can be found in cheating behavior and self-concept maintenance theory. According to the notion of self-concept maintenance, “people are often torn between two competing motivations: gaining from cheating versus maintaining a positive self-concept as honest (Aronson 1969; Harris, Mussen, & Rutherford 1976)” (p.634, Amir, Ariely, & Mazar, 2008). Essentially, individuals try to find the right balance between right and wrong, pushing the boundaries of the law as far as possible without going too far. According to Amir, Ariely, and Mazar (2008), most people like to cheat a little, a finding that further helps to explain our concept of a buffer zone. In a study by Amir, Ariely, and Mazar (2008) where three groups were paid for correct answers on a test, one group had no ability to cheat, one group had some ability to cheat with a low probability of getting caught, and the last group had a great ability to cheat with a very low probability of getting caught. While results showed that those in the cheating conditions reported higher scores, it appeared that the amount of relative cheating was low, indicating that people think it is fair to cheat just a little but it is unfair to cheat too much (Amir, Ariely. & Mazar 2008). This concept of cheating “just a little” nicely illustrates the buffer zone, as individuals want to push the boundaries of implicit rule (no cheating), gaining every possible advantage without going so far as to violate terms of social and moral acceptability. Thus, while cheating is technically unfair, illegal, or both, the THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 8 social norm appears to be that it is fair to cheat “just a little.” It is unfair, however, to violate this social norm and cheat a lot. Social norms that are initially unknown can still shape perceptions of fairness once further contextual information is provided. For instance, in plea bargaining research, Tor, Gazal-Ayal, and Garcia (2010) asked people to choose between (option a) accepting a 6month sentence plea bargain or (option b) risking a 2-year jail conviction at trial. What varied, however, was that half of the participants were additionally told that the majority of others were offered a shorter 3-month plea bargain, whereas the other half of the participants were told that the majority of others were offered a longer 9-month plea bargain. Results showed that people tended to reject the plea bargain as unfair when they were told that a majority of others received shorter 3-month plea bargains versus the longer 9-month option. While this finding demonstrates that people are more willing to put themselves at greater risk for conviction at trial because of comparative information, it also shows that when a social norm is violated – in this case, the social norm of not giving someone the “short end of the stick” – it is perceived as unfair. Again, outcomes that violate social norms are seen as being unfair. Social norms that are tied to the larger social context can also be violated and thus an outcome can be perceived as unfair (Garcia & Miller, 2007). For instance, if one is a school administrator deciding the type of music to be played at high school prom, one can easily flip a coin if half the students want “techno” music and half the students want “hiphop” music. After all, a coin toss is procedurally fair (Blount, 1995; Bolton, Brandts, & Ockenfels, 2005). However, if music preference cleaves along ethnic lines, such that one ethnic group wants “techno” and the other ethnic group wants “hip-hop,” then the coin toss THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW is rejected as being unfair (Garcia & Miller, 2007). After all, in this latter case, the social 9 norm of treating two different social category groups equally would be violated if a third party were to flip a coin (Garcia & Miller, 2007; Garcia & Ybarra, 2007), rendering the outcome unfair. Similar effects are found in research on ultimatum games. Social norms regarding the tolerance for inequality vary from culture to culture (Henrich, Boyd, Bowles, Camerer, Fehr, E., et al., 2001), and thus uneven ultimatum offers are differentially rejected as unfair when these culture-specific social norms are violated. In sum, the literature on social norms and fairness all converge on one important point: Individuals are upset when social norms are violated, as breaking social norms is unfair. Thus, because the spirit of the law embodies the social norms that guide behavior around the letter of the law, we can infer that people consider it unfair to break, not necessarily the letter of the law, but rather the spirit of the law. A Model of The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law Based on the social norms and law literature (e.g. Bicchieri, 2008; Posner, 2002) as well as the social norms and fairness literature (e.g. Amir, Ariely, & Mazar, 2008; Garcia & Miller, 2007) we are thus able to propose the following tenets of our model. From the social norms and law literature, we build the case that the spirit of the law is distinct from the letter in that the letter is what the law states while the spirit is a social and moral consensus of the interpretation of the law. Because the spirit is based on social norms, the distance between the letter and spirit can vary depending on social norms in effect for that particular crime, or infraction. From the fairness and social norms literature, we posit that when one breaks a social norm it is unfair – thus, there is no fair manner in which one can break the spirit of the law. An additional meaningful implication is that violations of the THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 10 spirit of the law are so important that people deem an action or outcome as unfair when only the spirit of the law, but technically not the letter of the law, is broken. We present the following tenets of The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law Model: 1. The letter of the law is a distinct entity from the spirit of the law. 2. The letter of the law is what the law states; the spirit of the law is a social and moral consensus of the interpretation of the letter. 3. a. People think it is unfair when enforcement occurs between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. b. People think it is fair when enforcement occurs within a certain proximity of the spirit of the law. c. People think it is unfair when enforcement begins too far beyond the spirit of the law. 4. People think it is unfair to violate the spirit of the law regardless of action relative to letter of the law. 5. The spirit of the law is violated when behavior violates social norms with regard to social and moral acceptability. Overview To further build converging support for the proposed tenets of our model, we performed a series of studies, using a decision-making methodology. In using between- and within-subject design studies and college student and working adult participant samples, we aim to test our hypotheses based on different aspects of the letter and spirit of the law. Studies 1-3 probe tenets 1-3 by exploring the relationship between fairness and violations of the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law. Study 3 further tests the relationship between social norms and the letter and spirit of the law in conjunction with the importance of fairness in society. Probing for tenets 4-5, Study 4 examines fairness and the THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 11 violation of the spirit of the law but not the letter of the law as well as the socially and morally acceptable underpinning of such violations. Study 1: The Letter Versus The Spirit of the Law Study 1 aims to provide support for the first tenet – that the letter of the law is different from the spirit of the law. Depending on the situation and type of infraction, the letter and spirit of the law may or may not be statistically significantly different entities, but they are always conceptually distinct. Nevertheless, to test this tenet we focus on the context of fishing. Regarding catch-per-day fishing limits, drawing from the work on cheating (Amir, Ariely, & Mazar, 2008), we presuppose that the social norm is that it is fine to go beyond the catch-per-day limit by just a tiny bit. Thus, in this case, we predict that the spirit of the law will be significantly different from the letter of the law. Method Participants A total of 108 undergraduates and alumni (61 females, 51 alumni) of the University of Michigan volunteered to participate in an online study. E-mail addresses were randomly selected from the University of Michigan directory. The response rate was approximately 30%. Procedure In this between-subject design study, the participants read a scenario about the legality of fishing in Wyoming and were subsequently asked a question pertaining to the letter or the spirit of the law. In the letter of the law condition, respondents read: You are trout fishing at Hebegen Lake in Wyoming. You are legally allowed to catch 5 trout per THE LETTER VERSUS THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW 12 day. According to the law, how many fish should you be able to catch before receiving a ticket? Enter a number (5 or above) below.” In the spirit of the law condition, participants read the identical scenario but were asked, “How many fish do you believe it would be fair to catch before receiving a ticket? Enter a number (5 or above) below.” Results and Discussion Because we used an open value question, we first analyzed the data to remove any outliers beyond 3-standard deviations from the mean. This resulted in two participants being dropped from the analyses; however, their exclusion did not change the significance or direction of the effect. In the letter of the law condition, we found a mean consistent with the legal limit of 5 fish (M=5.08, SD=.27) suggesting, as expected, that participants were correctly able to identify the letter of the law, which was that five fish could be caught each day. In the spirit of the law condition, participants posted a significantly higher value than the letter of the law, (M=5.75, SD=1.44, F(1,103)=11.2, p<0.01); a one-sample t-test also reveals that this condition is significantly different from the first condition– the letter of the law (t(51)=3.76, p<.001). This significance supports our hypothesis that there is a distinction between the letter of the law and spirit of the law. Essentially, the participants in this study displayed their desire for a “fudge factor” between the literal law and where the law should be enforced. Still, it is crucial to note that the letter and spirit need not be significantly different. In fact, as posited earlier they may be located in the exact same location (i.e. capital murder). Nevertheless, even in the case of murder, one simply must remain cognizant of the fact that the letter and spirit are distinct entities.