This is a discussion of two theories of legal interpretation and judicial decision-making. The discussion is centered upon the theories of H. L. A. Hart, and R. Dworkin. To create a seemingly flowing argument I shall start with the theory of Hart, in relation to judicial decision-making/adjudication, then move on to that of Dworkin, and his criticism of Hart’s theory. This will hopefully help explain what it is we expect from our judges when they decide cases according to the law.
Before I discuss the theories, I need to clearly highlight the distinction between so called ‘hard cases’ and ‘easy cases.’ I need to make this distinction clear as both theories mention the difference between them. In order to distinguish between the two above mentioned concepts, it is best to identify ourselves with the traditional view of law. The traditional view of law is that ‘there are right answers to legal questions, which can be found within the law.’ This view is that for one to find answers to legal questions being posed to courts, one is to look at the law, in order to determine the right answer(s) to the question being posed. This is the view that the law has answers to all legal question, and one is to look within the law to find the correct answer. This view is supported by both Hart and Dworkin. Now that I have described the view of the law, in which both theorists identify, it will be easier to describe the distinction between ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ cases.
Easy cases, or uncontroversial cases, are those where the legal rule clearly applies to the facts of the case, and no interpretation of the legal rule, or wording contained in the rule, needs to take place in order to come to a clear answer as to whether to apply that particular rule o...
... middle of paper ...
...xisting rules don’t apply to the set of fact brought before the court judges then look for the legal principles that might apply or do apply, like Dworkin suggests, or use their own discretion based on morals and public considerations, like Hart suggests. It can be seen that Hart’s decision is that where he doesn’t use the law to make a final decision, but uses morals and policy considerations, unlike Dworkin who uses the law to make decisions. In my view Dworkin’s view is the more accurate view, as it is also eliminates the judges own subjective thoughts, and rather focuses on the law. This creates certainty and allows for correct and legally objective decisions to be made by judges. Thefore I believe that Dworkin’s view is the view that best describes how we expect our judges to interpret the law and adjudicate properly over matters before the courts.
The law is seen in two ways; as being fair, neutral and having an unbiased arbitrator,
The legal Model is the behavior of judges explaining the law while making decisions. Justices tend to make judgments based off past precedent. Judges subscribe to the legal model for public consumption. J...
...is issue. As discussed earlier, his command theory of law mainly claims that the normativity of law is entirely a matter of law’s coerciveness. His theory has been superseded views such as those of Hart. Hart took pains to distinguish, as well as relate, law’s coercive- ness and its normativity. “Both the distinction and the relationship are expressed in the locution “norms backed by sanctions”: law’s normativity in this view must be understood independently of and in contrast to its coerciveness. Normativity is a matter of voluntary obedience; it invokes and relies on people’s disposition, whose nature and sources may vary, to follow legal rules. Coercion and normativity are portrayed as two separate but complementary strategies that the law employs to secure the individual conduct that it desires. The idea of a norm backed by a sanction is not unique to law”.
In addition to this, the analysis of law was not considered thoroughly during judicial decisions. Therefore, the court uses backward reasoning where it uses the expected results it wants to deduce to make decisions. Such activities in the justice department have a lot of impediments to the impartiality of judicial system. The rights of the criminal in many instances are affected by the use of such methods to deliver justice. According to Marshall, the legal analysis used to determine the outcome of the courts has reduced since the changes in the judicial system. The rights of the individuals have significantly reduced with the changes in the court system because only the nine judges are privy to the outcome of the court proceedings; they are also not liable to the questions that may be raised about the legality of their
The contradictory outcomes of cases presenting very similar facts to the court leads some jurists to cry out for reform and to denounce the defects in the present common law rules. Some, are supportive of the implementation of a statutory obligation to make reparation for wrongfully caused mental
Culver, Keith Charles. Readings in the philosophy of law. 1999. Reprint. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Press, 2008. Print.
As a positivist, Hart believes that there should be a firm distinction between ‘law as it is’ and ‘law as it ought to be’, specifically law and morality. According to positivists, whether a law is valid or not is not dependant on the justification of said law, but rather that it is recognized as enforceable by tests that are enforced by an efficacious legal system. To better understand this theory, one must look at Hart’s definition of a legal system and the separation of primary and secondary rules. The former refers to rules that are socially acceptable in a society and regulate the behaviour of persons in a society by creating obligations and therefore creating social pressure to follow these obligations. It is, however, insufficient for a legal system to contain only primary rules and because of this secondary rules come into play. Secondary rules enforce primary obligations in the form of law.
It is no surprise as to why the case Riggs v Palmer is such a renowned case, for this case tests the importance of many of the philosophers’ theories, especially on the validity of certain laws and the conflict between law and morality. This hard case has been used as a reference for many court decisions over the years and will be most likely used in the future as well. An inference can be made based on this case and the legal conflicts and issues that the judges faced when reaching their verdict. Those who commit the crime should not be rewarded by attaining what motivated them in the first place as the fruit of their crime, and in the event that such a crime occurs, judges must interpret the law in the same manner that the law makers intended
Wolf, R. (2007). Prinicples of Problem-Solving Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Center for Court Innovation.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
An employee does an unsatisfactory job on an assigned project. Explain the attribution process that this person's manager will use to form judgments about this employee's job performance.
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
The courts of England and Wales acknowledge that the above must be something of value, in order to amount to consideration. A valuable consideration in the perspective of the English La...