Lon L. Fuller’s purpose in “The Problem of The Grudge Informer” is to show his readers the various relations between the nature of law and morality. In his article, he tells his readers to hypothetically imagine that they have been elected Minister of Justice for their country. He makes his readers imagine a perfect country that then has been ruined by a political party or society that called themselves the Purple Shirts. The way they were elected was by giving false promises and by intimidation. They had no interest in abolishing the constitution, Civil and Criminal Codes, and the Code of Procedures. The country lived under a Reign of Terror, which was a period of violence during the French Revolution.
Judges who tried to change decisions …show more content…
They need to be loyal to the rule of law because of procedural fairness. It is difficult to treat same kind of cases the same way and different cases differently because there are other factors that play into each crime, but the court should be consistent with prior decisions.
Judges do not have full discretion because they have guidelines they need to rule by. Judges cannot go below or above sentencing guidelines. The way the use their discretion is by the mitigating and aggravating factors that prosecutors and defense attorneys present. A problem with the guidelines could be that they become too strict. For example, someone who is not as bad can get the same sentence as someone who is very bad.
For example, someone who is charged with 1st degree murder and they are sentenced to life in prison. They cannot seek parole until at least most of their sentence has been served and anyways, they are going to be sentenced the same as others who have committed the same offense—not any …show more content…
Even though a person is morally responsible for what they do, they are also legally entitled to their actions, but we should not correlate law and morality. The First Deputy mentions that there were no laws against what the Grudge Informers did, so they should not be punish, but that is why I agree with the Fourth Deputy to come up with statutes to punish them. The Second Deputy says that laws can only be enforced if they are known to the public. The Third Deputy says that every case should be examined and decided differently. Finally, the Fifth Deputy states that we should just seek revenge without
Judges who tried to change decisions …show more content…
They need to be loyal to the rule of law because of procedural fairness. It is difficult to treat same kind of cases the same way and different cases differently because there are other factors that play into each crime, but the court should be consistent with prior decisions.
Judges do not have full discretion because they have guidelines they need to rule by. Judges cannot go below or above sentencing guidelines. The way the use their discretion is by the mitigating and aggravating factors that prosecutors and defense attorneys present. A problem with the guidelines could be that they become too strict. For example, someone who is not as bad can get the same sentence as someone who is very bad.
For example, someone who is charged with 1st degree murder and they are sentenced to life in prison. They cannot seek parole until at least most of their sentence has been served and anyways, they are going to be sentenced the same as others who have committed the same offense—not any …show more content…
Even though a person is morally responsible for what they do, they are also legally entitled to their actions, but we should not correlate law and morality. The First Deputy mentions that there were no laws against what the Grudge Informers did, so they should not be punish, but that is why I agree with the Fourth Deputy to come up with statutes to punish them. The Second Deputy says that laws can only be enforced if they are known to the public. The Third Deputy says that every case should be examined and decided differently. Finally, the Fifth Deputy states that we should just seek revenge without