The Interpretive Model Of Judges Case Analysis

‘The interpretation of the law falls within the function of the Judiciary,’ like within the case of the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens. This responsibility that the judges and lords have when preceding over cases, particularly ‘hard cases’, has resulted in several different theories developed to aid the judge. One of which is the positivist school of judicial reasoning associated with the work of Austin and Hart, and a counterpart of Dworkin’s interpretive model. Lord Coleridge’s verdict in the Queen v. Dudley and Stephens was relatively thorough. With that being said, the thoroughness was heavily based on the judge’s own ideas of morality. He speculates that they could have potentially been rescued the next day or not at all, making the killing unnecessary. The death was not due to the boy being against or stirring up the remaining survivors either, thus not even allowing it to be aggravated assault; that would result in the two being the assailants of premeditated murder under ordinary circumstances. Once it is considered against the current predicament the judge evaluated if it justified the death of Parker. In the doctrines of law, it is nearly always stated that it is lawful to …show more content…
The rules or standards, associated with positivism require that the judge follows predetermined principles and routes when interpreting the law and evidence. The two main principles that must be used when assessing legalities are whether or not it is a) not part of a valid law or b) apart of a valid law. Dworkin instead “rejec[ed] the positivist conceptions of law and interpretation, instead of theorizing that rights are premised upon a comprehensive set of moral precepts that make individual rights valuable, and act as ‘trumps’”. Essentially that it responds to the unique values and sensitivities of the judge when applying the