It's pretty sad that normal relatively non-crazy people have come to accept this view of legal interpretation, when it is so severely fucked up.
What is sad is people who don't understand basic Constitutional principles sneering at those who do. In addition, it is not viewed as a "legal interpretation," but a "legal finding." That means it is a combination of the facts in evidence, and the law. Appellate law addresses laws in controversy, by definition. A jury, which is *the* fact-finding body, cannot find a law un-Constitutional, or wrongly interpreted. But if one decides to appeal to an appellate court for a determination, the appeals court must focus on the law and precedent only, and may not refute the jury's finding of facts. YANAL, but I am.
First, it's fucked up because it incorporates a totalitarian assumption is that every possible circumstance should be governed by law, and that whenever someting happens that isn't covered by law it must have been some sort of oversight that should immediately be rectified.
First, it's fucked up because you obviously don't understand what the word "totalitarian" means. It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I do believe you are confusing "totalitarian" with "authoritarian." A common misinterpretation.
Secondly, *everything* is covered by the law in the US. That is the foundational principle of the country. You might want to take a Constitutional law course, and brush up, so you can stop pulling stuff out of your ass.
It is impossible for legislators to foresee every possible variation of crime or tort that falls under a new statute. For instance, it can be very difficult to determine if a burglary has taken place, even though the words on their face are clear. That is when the Judiciary steps in, to determine the intent of a statute, and whether or not a statute is valid in the first place
Second, it's fucked up because it implies an unthinking acceptance of retrospective law. When judges make up new rules and apply them to the case at hand they are *always* applying those rules retrospectively.
Your argument would stand on firmer ground if you knew the correct terms of art. RETROACTIVE, not retrospective. Geez. That is pretty rudimentary. And you are just wrong, whether you use the correct word or not.
Under this sort of view it doesn't matter what you do, even if the law makes no mention of it now, when you get hauled off to court suitable rules will be made up to cover whatever it was you did.
Do you even understand how statutory law works? The final interpretation of a law under which someone has been convicted, and then appealed, is already in existence. Therefore, it is not ex post facto (another term of art that I believe you misunderstand, and one I think you were confusing with "retrospective" (sic)). An Ex Post Facto law is one made up *specifically* to criminalize an act AFTER the act has been committed. It is not just an appellate determination that doesn't go the way the plaintiff may wish.
You are not thinking clearly.