> A “results” oriented society is a regression from a “rules” oriented society. We have that in Bangladesh—courts that do what they think is “right” instead of following the rules. It’s better than courts where judges take bribes or act in their personal self interest, but not as good as courts that rationally apply the rules.

Applying the rules is great when the rules seem mostly fair and reasonable.

When the rules, applied to a situation, produce a seemingly very harsh outcome – especially when there is no evidence their original authors would have actually wanted that outcome in this particular case – judges often look for ways to "bend" them.

Rather than something limited to countries such as Bangladesh – it is something which has happened time and time again in the history of common law tradition. If a judge feels that mechanical application of the law produces an unconscionable outcome, they will find a way to reinterpret the law, so it doesn't actually mean what it says on its face.

This especially happens when the judge views the aggrieved party sympathetically – far more likely for a well-respected businessperson who has received a seemingly disproportionate penalty for unintentional violations of the law, than a career criminal on death row.