Letter of the law vs. intent of the law

My Mom and I used to have many conversations about the difference between how law is interpreted in the UK vs. the US and I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion. She's a former British citizen (via Jamaica) and has been both a Chartered Accountant and a CPA and has dealt with the difference in a professional capacity. 

I will admit that I'm no in any way conversant with anything other than broad strokes of this so if I'm wrong in any way, please let me know. I'll also do more research on the topic (sigh - this research docket is getting longer). 

One the biggest differences we discussed is the difference between intent and 'the letter'. Meaning that British law tends to be a set of guiding principles that cover not only the specific problem at hand but also the grey area surrounding it. That means that one can be convicted of a crime, even if a loop hole seemingly allowed it because it's the spirit of the law that's the most important. American law – and therefore American contacts etc – is all about the letter of the law. That's why our legislation is so lengthy. Our legal system needs to spell out every specific case where one can go afoul of the law. If it's not in that specific statute, technically no crime has been committed. 

Which system is 'right'? Sometimes I wonder if life would be easier or less costly if we had the former system and not the latter. In theory having everything spells out sounds great because there is little for interpretation. But human nature propensity to bend the truth will always prevail and/or look for loopholes, undermining trust in the system. Poster child for this issue: Enron.

This is on my mind because of all the scandals that have been in the news lately.