Contemporary Jurisprudence Case Study

Decent Essays
Contemporary Jurisprudence: Make Up Assignment for Seminar 2
My group presented the text of Dworkin:
Dworkin tries to find a middle ground between Hart and Fullers’ theories, building his jurisprudence on an attack of Hart’s claim that the law consists only of rules. Like Fuller, Dworkin thinks that the law is inherently interpretative. Dworkin contends that in reality the materials available to judges are wider than only rules, and that in practice judges use principles and background justifications as well as rules to decide hard cases. Dworkin argues that by using the full range of legal materials available to judges, they will not have to rely on discretion and instead will be able to solve hard cases objectively in a principled way according
…show more content…
Although deciding cases according to principle may involve constructive interpretation of legal materials, the decisions reached in this way will not be subjective, but will be objectively grounded in existing law.
b. Judges who reason this way will be acting according to their institutional responsibilities and therefore the law will have maximum integrity:
i. It will be as if the judge is writing a chapter in a chain novel: each new rule is necessarily shaped and changed by what has gone before it.

Law and Morality:
Dworkin disagrees with Hart’s separation of laws and morality, but he says that following rules is an important principle itself and is backed by an institutional right to have one’s case decided by a court acting on established rules.
• This means that it is illegitimate for judges to rely on their own subjective preferences or moral views or advance their own idea of the social good.
• Instead they must rely on the background moral principles that are already embedded in the full set of legal materials to hand.

Right Answer Thesis:
Dworkin also maintains that there is a ‘right answer’ for every hard case, even when there are no rules to cover it.
He says that the right answer is the only answer that can be reached by correct legal reasoning, which he argues consists of an analysis
…show more content…
Because of lawyers important role in society it would not be right for lawyers to use a different or internal moral basis if it conflicts with society morals which is why the code is present in the first place. Obviously there are grey areas and parts of the law that these codes do not cover when a lawyer may have to use their own moral judgment however, they should align it to be in-keeping with society and ethical morals of the justice system.

Is the debate about positivism and natural law of any relevance today?
I think the debate about positivism and natural law is still of relevance today. Even though a positivist view of law is more in line with the trend in many developed countries. Natural law is the basis still of a lot of developing countries. The debate most importantly means an understanding of other cultures and their laws.

The justice system in no country is perfect yet. Therefore, jurisprudence in all areas of law is relevant to further understand law and different legal systems and how it should be used at all levels from judges, lawyers, laymen, citizens

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Thus, there is something uneasy about upholding moral principles society cannot agree upon, especially when this process has no other virtues. Judges deferring to Parliamentary decisions However, there is great tension as soon as we change our beliefs on the nature of law and hence, the legal reasoning implemented regarding the extent to which judges shape the law. For example, with positivism – under either Hart or Kelsen – law is separate from morality. Under Hart’s theory, there is some room for judges to apply discretion, as rules have a core of easy meaning and application, and a penumbra of uncertainty. However, for the most part, judges are to apply the clear legal rules which are posited.…

    • 1728 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    What Is Legal Positivism

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages

    The reasons for establishing, changing and maintaining laws include moral reasons, e.g. preventing people from killing each other or stealing from each other. These reasons shape the concepts of law; hence law is not separable from morality as suggested by positivists. In the current world, there is a growing concern for the protection of human rights, duties, responsibility and freedom. The ideal role of the government is no longer to maintain peace as suggested by Hobbes, but also to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens as suggested by John Locke.…

    • 1678 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    That is not to say that judges will be best positioned to make the final interpretation of an error of law in every case; interpretations of law do not inherently make themselves known to judges or administrators . Judges, while vested with a great deal of power, are not omnipotent and omniscient and this must be kept in mind when dealing with an issue as nuanced as the ground of review of errors of law. But the way that this provision has been applied in cases after Hira v Booysen such as Tantouch v Refugee Appeal Board and Governing Body, Mikro Primary School v Minister of Education, Western Cape , show that the court must give the interpretation of law and facts by the…

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Justice Macalia Textualism

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages

    As argued by Judge Richard A. Posner, strict constructionism, or what he refers to as “legal formalism” adheres to principles of the law that are “too narrow” (O’Brien 204). Judge Posner further argues that in legal formalism, the text of the law is meant “to decide whether the right exists,” as they are written in the Constitution (O’Brien 204). By that account, although strict constructionism only reads the text and uses a literal meaning, it still applies the literal intent of the law. For that reason, Judge Posner argues that when using the element of meaning, Judges cannot make their decisions by reading the text directly (O’Brien 207). As Judge Posner states, the Constitution does not say, “read me broadly or read me narrowly” (O’Brien 207), as to suggest that the meaning of the text should not be interpreted…

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Introduction Legal formalism is a belief, in the capacity of legal rules, to determine the outcomes to legal disputes without having recourse to the judge’s political beliefs or sense of fairness. Formalism posits that judicial interpreters can and should be tightly constrained by the objectively determinable meaning of a statute; if unelected judges exercise much discretion in these cases, democratic governance is threatened. Legal-formalist have been severely criticised by, among others, legal realist and critical legal studies scholars. This essay aims to discuss the criticism of legal formalism by the above mentioned movement and school of thought. This will be achieved by critically engaging with questions of whether criticisms of legal…

    • 2094 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Should Judges Make Law

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages

    It is arguable that as judges are not elected, their role in law making should be limited as policy decisions are based on society and it is more appropriate for an elected body to do this. Lord Esher said ' 'if the words of the act are clear then you must follow them even if they lead to manifest absurdity ' '. Another reason is that it is difficult to know when applying the purposive approach what parliament actually intended. So it is arguable that judges are putting in their own values on what they think parliament intended, especially with old acts. For example, it is difficult to know what members of Parliament were thinking when the Offences Against the Person Act (1861) was passed as it was a long time ago and words in the Act are not used in the same way today.…

    • 1958 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Acts of parliament often provide a general instruction on the law but not how it would work in theory. It is therefore up to judges to examine specific facts for each case, interpret legislation and administer the law in line with their findings. Common law is consistent yet flexible in that it is a constantly evolving whilst maintaining its system of precedent. It allows the courts to create rules of law based on individual and new cases which can be used in future cases to offer guidance. With equity as a characteristic of this system built on precedent, a common set of principle are applied to all people regardless of their status and procedure have been set to provide equality and fairness to all.…

    • 1466 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example, when judges rule on cases which involve weighing up several legal rules, they exercise their discretionary abilities to find a course of action that they feel is the best. But these ‘moral’ issues, the soft positivist proposes, are no more than social attitudes and norms; morality does not transcend a society. The laws allowing slavery would be deemed evil today, while at the time they reflected what was socially acceptable. Hard positivism, defended by Joseph Raz , maintains that law and morality not only need not be connected, they must not be connected. The concept of law can only be explained without any reference to morality at all.…

    • 1632 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    However, “prima facie” means that “it is accepted as correct until proved otherwise” . As a consequence, we have a duty to obey the law but it can be overridden when we have a more pressing moral obligation . Furthermore, to reinforce my point of view I will rely on what Finnis advocated concerning that matter. He was also conscious that saying an unjust law is not a law is a contradiction, when he talked about the peripheral sense of law. Indeed, he explained that law has two senses.…

    • 2196 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The opinions of the minority are not always right; neither are the opinions of the majority always right. Therefore, both sides must receive an equal chance to express their ideas. The presence of legal systems for attending to matters of unfair legislations does not necessarily ensure that such matters would be attended. Undeniably, it would be illogical to believe that the government would be quick to improve its own disorder yet it neglected to identify the disorder to begin with; civil disobedience is essential. Additionally, civil disobedience may be set aside as the pis aller but this would defer justice and consequently form a bigger issue (Lefkowitz 212).…

    • 1009 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays

Related Topics