Judicial Reasoning And Decisions

Judicial Reasoning And Decisions adjudicate often couch their tagments in language which would suggest that their role is merely to decl atomic number 18 the fair play (declaratory possibility). It is frank that judge in item use a variety of logical systemal thinking techniques. Different judges whitethorn use varied techniques at unlike dates.Inconsistencies generated as a result of variant judges adopting incompatible logical thinking provides source for critique and evaluation by finding argumentation used by a contingent tribunal and to contrast this with the argument adopted by opposite judges. From this we give the bounce mark turn appearWhere there is a eubstance in the approach taken by different judges and different courts.Similarly, where there ar inconsistent approaches.How judges adopt a bad-tempered mixed bag of understandinging to avoid extending a close, or to r apiece a determination that appears more than just or acceptable.An understandin g of how judges arrive at findings and the reasoning employed helps with an appreciation of how good philosophy develops all all over while alternatively to recognise why it is that honor fails to develop in response to changing loving conditions.Aspects of ReasoningDeductive reasoning lamentable from a general proposition to a feature conclusion. Moving from a general observation to a picky conclusion in a special field of study any men atomic number 18 mortalBrian is a valet de chambreBrian is mortalGeneral observation is active valet de chambre and mortality. conditioned that Brian is a man, allows the conclusion most Brians mortality. The reasoning relies on a come before, in this effort that all men atomic number 18 mortal. Need for certainty about this general premise.Assessment is entirely hooked on the truth or accuracy of what is tell about mortality and Brians gender.The utility of deductive reasoning, or reasoning ground on general statements, is that it has the capacity to allow us to induct omens, for suitIf it rains you pull up stakes get lopsided major premise/observationIt is raining minor premiseYou will get wet conclusionFacts may be inaccurate, there is the possibility of conditionality (use an umbrella), save the logic of the reasoning process which remains valid. Where a conclusion is based on a process of deductive reasoning it is important toAssess the specialization or weakness (reliability) of the premise (or premises) relied upon). make do whether the major premise is itself dependable.Consider whether the major premise may be undermined by neverthelessions.In good philosophy a particular conclusion may be based upon an self-assertion that some premise is true, that it is a event. This assumption may be derived from an estimate of the faithfulness (statute/case authority). This assumption of the law is used to make divineions based on kn hold connatural facts.There may be distrust about the law. The premises upon which judges rely may be challenged.inducive reasoning a particular observation induces a particular conclusion. suitIt has rained every year in October for the last five years consequently it will rain in October.Accuracy of the statement may be confirmed. alone there remains some doubt about the prediction. With inductive reasoning there is never absolute certainty.Reasoning by relationFrom a given up set of factual circumstances, using analogy with opposite circumtsnces, to a prediction about what might be the significance of those circumstances. E.g. from a set of facts in a profound case to a prediction of what might be the vector sum of the case by adduceence to other equal cases. ,At its simplest reasoning by analogy may be described by caseA has characteristic XB shargons that characteristicA also has characteristic YB must(prenominal) ingest characteristic YThe example is simplistic only illustrative. effort A is similar to cau sal agent B so similar things must be true of Case B as they argon of Case A.Subjective element involved in deciding about similarities and dissimilaritys, exampleWood floats on water. Stone is like wood in that it an pulseless object, it does non move. Stone will float on water.Stone occupy a characteristic that is identified for wood, i.e. that it is inanimate. On the tooshie of the nonliteral method this might result in an inaccurate prediction. The selected similarity, i.e. that the fact that both argon inanimate objects, is non a germane(predicate) characteristic.The selection of relevant characteristics for proportion is vital to the efficiency of the nonliteral method.Cases will often have similar facts besides there will al ways be differences. Even in the most straightforward of cases, e.g., a cat valium personate assail by punching, or a minor course traffic accident, precise facts actors, conditions will differ. But these differences may not always be re levant.E.g. in most cases the fact that the actors are different (age, sex etc.) when it comes to application of the criminal law is irrelevant, but redden here there are exceptions. There may not be any liability in the case of a nestling or a person under a disability.In applying the analogical method to cases be aware ofRelevant similarities.Relevant differences.In licit context some precedent or legal authority may prevent or rules out particular similarities or differences creation relied upon.A description of analogical reasoning in the law is given by Emily SherwinEmily Sherwin, A Defence of Analogical Reasoning in legality, (1999) 66 Uni. loot LR 1179.Sherwin describes the analogical method in relation to its application in law. confronted with an untune question, the judge surveys previous(prenominal) decisions, identifies the ways in which these decisions are similar to or different from each other and the question before her, and develops a linguistic rule that c aptures the similarities and differences she considers important. This principle in turn provides the tail end for the judges own decision. whatsoever one may think about the merits of analogical decision-making, there is particular question that judges and lawyers addressing judges often cast their compendium in this form. p.1179Sherwins refers toAn unsett conduct question a question of dispute which the judge has to decide.A survey of past decisions a review of authority,Similarity and difference relevant factors for analogy or distinction.Need to capture some principle which provides the basis of his or her decision.Returning to similarity and difference.Similarity allows cases with similar facts to be clear-cut based on the authority of former decisions on basis of established legal rules. Similarity and the analogical method provide a cornerstone on which to build a critique of judicial reasoning (comparing outcomes in similar cases, focussing on similarities selec ted or overlooked).The importance of difference is that it allows cases to be distinguished one from the other. This is significant asIt allows legal rules to develop for different factual situations.It allows a judge to reach a different decision from that decided in a previous case even where this appears similar to the case which he or she is required to decide.This sozzleds it allows the law to develop. desire similarity, the assignment of difference facilitates criticism of judicial decision making (cases should be distinguished so that different legal rules should apply, facts were not sufficiently different for a case to be distinguished).Critique of the analogical method may include whether or not high principle ought to be applied.Sunstein uses the example of exhaust speech in American states.Cass R. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning, 106 Harvard Law Review (1993) 741.Sunstein discusses the prohibition on banning free speech (Brandenburg v Ohio 395 US (1969)), and the p ossibility that some states might try to ban particular forms of free speech. Argues this is without principle unless differences in types of free speech can be identified as scrupulous.Sunstein compares a march by the Nazi fellowship and a speech by member of the Klu Klux Klan. She points out that one difference amongst the Nazi March and the Klu Klux Klan speech is that the Nazi Party is associated with the holocaust. This is so a difference, but American law currently deems it irrelevant. It appears unprincipled or excessively ad hoc for the states to ban prohibitions on political speech except where the speaker is associated with the Holocaust. p.745Sunstein argues that to distinguish between the KKK and the Nazi party on the basis of an association with the Holocaust is unprincipled in the context of regulating of free speech. The principle of free speech is what informs the law in the United States. The identification of difference, even though this may be valid, cannot justify button from the higher principle of free speech.Analogical Reasoning Advantages and DisadvantagesFor many analogical reasoning is comparatively unsophisticated and lacks depth or detail. But there are advantagesIt does not require actors to develop their own theories to cipher for convictions as decisions are based on previous decisions. Actors are free to hardly refer to developed principles arising from past cases.It promotes gradual phylogenesis of the law over time giving stability. This is because where there are similarities with past cases the outcome is likely to be similar, but where there are some relevant differences this will estimate for throw.It fits with stare decisis. You will be aware of this principle, that judges should follow the decisions of previous cases where these represent an authoritative precedent.It allows convergence on outcomes. Put more simply the law becomes predictable.It requires strong justification to depart from authority. This mean s that where there is firing form a particular hound of authority convincing and principled reasons will support such a departure.It requires constant vigilance to interpret consistency. Judges and lawyers are always looking and checking to ensure that a particular cases falls deep protrude a line of precedent, or for other more suitable precedent.Disadvantages.The law remains static as judges are reluctant to depart from past decisions.The pace of neuter is slow as the law changes only incrementally as judges are able to identify differences between cases.The law fails to respond to neighborly change which takes place at a more fast pace than change in the coarse law.It maintains decisions which may be base don judicial preferences or prejudices.Is it true that the analogical method and precedent acts as a restraint on judges? Decisions and reasoning by analogy depend very more on the validity of the analogy selected, which is a matter for the judge to determine.A judge pursuance to avoid a particular conclusion may determine the ratio of a particular case, the principle which it espouses, by a process of inductive reasoning from the facts of antecedent cases this introduces uncertainty.A judge may formulate the ratio bendd by his or her opinion on what the law should be, it then follows that a judge may select a case which best fits his or her interpretation of the law.As lawyers we may often step that judges in the super C law system make the law. As Postema commentsWe expect judges to follow rules, but it appears in common law practice rules follow judges it was Bentham who first used the term judge do law hurling against English law as a term of contempt and abuseGerald J. Postema, Philosophy of the Common Law, The Oxford Handbook of mandate and Philosophy of Law (Oxford, OUP, 2002), 588-621, p.589The possibility that judges will influence the glut of law even in a system of analogical reasoning, or perhaps because of the system, is a valid criticism of judicial decision making.Judges may be criticised for failing to reflect normative or social values. Where the judge decides in accordance with established principle the process of reasoning by analogy begins with anterior decisions rather than a judges own observations and intuitions. It is arguable that thisFails to reflect changing attitudes because past decision are, by definition, taken under a different set of social conditions.And that it maintains bad decisions where these do not fit with present day values.As Sunstein points out analogical reasoning usually does have a backward-looking, conservative, incremental character it should be acknowledged that insofar as analogical reasoning takes current legal materials as the basis for reasoning, it can indeed be an obstacle to reassert change through law.Cass R. Sunstein, On Analogical Reasoning, 106 Harvard Law Review (1993) 741. p.768Would it be better to allow a judge to act on his or her intuition and e mploy ordinary moral reasoning?Lack of speculationA key criticism of analogical reasoning is that decisions are arrived at without reference to an overarching supposition which provides moral content or principles. Judges are unlikely to justify particular outcomes based on a theory of law. Instead abstraction is from particular cases. course of action addiction travel plan addiction theory tells us that an outcome or decision, whether it be a decision taken by policy-makers such as politicians, or by judges, is molded in a very particular way by decisions and outcomes which led up to it by the data track guide to it (history matters).Legal context decisions taken by judges in the course of interpreting and applying statute or in the course of developing the common law will be influenced by decisions taken and the outcomes of cases which have taken place in the past. averment of the obvious But important question is why are past decisions so important? Why is precedent and p ast decisions so get?Can direction dependance explain the non-prescriptive nature of precedent within the common law? System of precedent allows the law to remain relationly stable but processes of change do take place. Law develops. way of life colony theory can explain change as tumefy as continuity.Path Dependency LiteratureOne of most influential writers on mode dependency theory has been Paul David (economics). Work on confidence of the QWERTY keyboard system in word processing and computer technologies. David argues dominance of the QWERTY system due to processes of elbow room dependency taking place in the manufacture of keyboards.Paul A. David, Clio and the Economics of QWERTY, American Economic Review, 1985, 75(2), Papers and proceedings of the Ninety-seventh Annual meeting of the American Economic Association, pp.332-337.A pass dependent sequence of economic change is one of which important influences upon the eventual outcome can be exerted by temporally remote events (332).Events taking place earlier in time have an important influence on the outcome of sequences of events. Statement on its own is empty and unhelpful. Path dependency theory does not stop here.Paul Pierson, Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the composition of Politics, American Political Science Review, 2000, 94(2), pp.251-267.Broad c in one caseption history matters. Pierson is lively claiming this is unhelpful. Narrower definition (as suggested by Margaret Levi).Levi argues (in the context of political decision-making) that once a once a state has adopted a particular passageway (policies), cost of reversal are high. Different choices can be made but entrenchments of institutional arrangements will obstruct easy reversal of sign choice.Pierson, notes that once particular courses of action are adopted they can be closely impossible to reverse. Political development punctuated by over exact hours or junctures that fake basic contours of policy and therefor e social life.Increasing fall downs Pierson uses to explain course of study dependency. Steps taken in one direction induce driving force in the kindred direction. Benefits of continuing down a particular path increase more likely that that path will be selected in the succeeding(a) (even in case of inefficient outcomes).Features of increase returnsLarge set-up or fixed be.Learning effects.Coordination effects.Adaptive expectations.Pierson applies path dependency to politics. Useful in analysis of law as Pierson refers to social institution, politics, political activity and social policy. Refers to institutional constraints policies and constraint on behaviour, and coercive powers signal to actors what has to be done.How are these concepts relevant to the law?Paul Pierson, Not Just What, but When clock and Sequence in Political execute, Studies in American Political Development, 2000, 14, pp.72-92.Process of increasing returns induces self-reinforcement or positive feedback . Initial moves in a particular direction encourage still movement along the same path. The road not chosen becomes increasingly unreachable as an alternative.Pierson notes that a searing feature of path dependent processes is the relative openness or permissiveness of proterozoic stages in a sequence compared with the relatively closed or coercive nature of later stages.James Mahoney, Path habituation in sociological history, Theory and Society, 2000, 29, pp.507-548Mahoney argues that path habituation characterizes specifically those historical sequences in which contingent events set into motion institutional patterns or event durance that have deterministic properties (507). Also refers to self-re-enforcing mechanisms (increasing returns), and power and legitimation mechanisms (509).Discusses reactive sequences temporally ordered and causally connected events. For a series of events to be path dependent they must be contingent rather than simply causally linked, and must p ossess a quality of inherent sequentiality (509).Mahoney seeks to conceptualize path dependence broad conceptualization that essentially entails the argument that past events influence future events. Refers Sewells influential definition, path dependence means that what has happened at an earlier point in time will affect the possible outcomes of a sequence of events occurring at a later point in time. some historical sociologists employ a more specific under-standing of path dependence past choices affect future processes.Path-dependent analyses minimally have three features 1 path-dependent analysis involves the study of causal processes where early decisions are highly influential 2 early historical events are contingent occurrences that cannot be explained on the basis of prior events 3 path-dependent sequences are marked by relatively deterministic causal patterns.Self-reinforcing sequences initial steps in a particular direction induce gain ground movement in the same direct ion such that over time it becomes difficult or impossible to reverse direction.With self-reinforcing sequences, periods of institutional genesis insure to precise junctures. Critical junctures are characterized by the adoption of a particular institutional arrangement from among two or more alternatives. Critical because once a particular option is selected it becomes industrially more difficult to return to the initial point when multiple alternatives were still available.Power explanation actors make decisions by weighing costs and benefits. (refers to power of elites and is not directly relevant to analysis within the law).Legitimation explanation grounded in actors subjective orientations and beliefs about what is appropriate or morally correct (moral approval to acquiescence with stipulation quo).Reactive sequences follow a different logic from that of self-reinforcing sequences. Reactive sequences are marked by backlash perhaps to reverse early events. wee events trigge r subsequent development not by reproduction but through reaction and counter-reaction.Adrian Kay, A Critique of the Use of Path Dependency in Policy Studies, Public Administration, 2005, 83(3), pp.553-571.Process is path dependent if initial moves in one direction elicit further moves in that same direction. Path dependency is a process that constrains future choice sets. It is not a story of inevitability in which the past neatly predicts the future.(554)Path dependency is about stability observations of change challenge this notion. Critique of path dependency is that it is rather better at explaining stability than change. Picking up on argument by Thelen (1999) who argues that path dependency is too deterministic.Taylor C. Boas, Conceptualizing pertinacity and potpourri The Composite-standard Model of Path Dependency, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2007, 19(1), pp.33-54.Analysis of institutional development needs to account for both continuity and change over time. Problem with path dependence which emphasizes lock-in is that political institutions change over time, exhibiting flexibleness rather than rigidity (35). Suggests a composite-standard model of path dependency to account for change to illustrates how incremental changes in political institutions can translate into inherent transformation over time (35).Distinguishes inflexibility (limiting deviation within a path) from lock-in (difficulty in switching paths).Law and Path DependencyMark J. Roe, nuthouse and Evolution in Law and Economics, Harvard Law Review, 1996, 109(3), pp.641-668Roe notes that the evolutionary look-alike (evolution to efficiency) has a strong grip on law scholarship.Uses road metaphor. once in a while path dependent road becomes so costly that society rips it up and builds a new road. Where inefficiencies are built into a system path dependency helps us understand why they remain (646).Weak form path dependence two options (or more), both equally efficient. Path depen dence explains why society perseveres with one but says nothing about relative efficiencies.Semi-strong form path dependence saved costs are outweighed by costs of change. Once society has established its path the costs of change might outweigh advantages that accrue.Strong form path dependence costs of change would be worthwhile but there is still electric resistance to change.Notes that path dependence supposes slow change through time (punctuated equilibrium). Where path dependence is strong-form change is desirable but society is stuck due to lock-in effects.Oona A. Hathaway, Path Dependence in the Law The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System, Iowa Law Review, 2001, 86(2), 601-665.Despite citation of role of history in legal development little is know about the specific ways in which it matter path dependency provides analytical tool.Outcome or decision is shaped in a very particular way by decisions and outcomes which led up to it (path leading to it). In the common law each legal decision increases the fortune that the next will take a particular form. Early decisions can lead to lock-in (resistance to change). Inflexibility can lead to inefficiency. Opportunities for change arise at critical junctures (guides practitioners to concentrate their resources on altering the path of the law at given instances).The past forms the point of departure for the present. The present, in turn, forms the point of departure for the future. Therefore, the historical path leading to each new outcome or decision directly shapes that outcome in specific and systematic ways (663).Several variants to path dependency. Increasing returns path dependence growing out of the economics literature. In law it is less costly to continue down a particular path than it is to change to a different path. Identifies four-spot characteristics of increasing returns large set-up costs learning effects coordination effects and self-reinforcing or adaptive expectati ons. Features of increasing returns are the indeterminacy of outcome at the outset, the increasing prospect of lock-in or inflexibility. The initially selected technology will become locked-in even if there is an equally developed alternative which could have been superior.evolutionary path dependence based on a Dawrwinian notion of gradual and progressive evolution, or an alternative conception based on new evolutionary theory where periods of stasis are followed by sudden change or punctuated equilibria. As in increasing returns path dependence it is difficult to predict outcomes of change in advance. This is because punctuated equilibria are marked by contingency. This is because the variables are not inescapably known in advance. Because of this it is not possible to predict the arrival of fast change in advance. But once change has occurred the theory does predict a period of stability. Both forms of evolutionary theory agree that changes in the past directly determine the p ossibilities for the future.Describes the system of precedent within the common law. Most striking feature of path dependence affecting the common law is increasing returns due to the reliance on precedent. Process of settle generates learning effects. Common law generates significant reinforcing effects and adaptive expectations. This includes amongst litigants who will select their cases to fit with particular precedents to avoid becoming losers. This pushes the law further in the same direction and discourages litigants form bringing cases in case they lose. Judges act on incomplete information about future outcomes of their decisions, this is adjoined rationality.Small early changes in the law can have significant future ramifications. Early cases on a legal number become important because the path of the common law is locked in at an early stage. A consequence of path dependency in the law is that of lock-in or inflexibility. A further feature of path dependence is indetermi nacy of outcome. Early cases are unpredictable but not inexplicable. This does not mean that there is not one correct rule, but rather that at the outset it cannot be predicted in which direction the law will move.Evolutionary theory of path dependence invoked most frequently in legal literature. In a common law system the decision in each case entices on the stock of existing precedent. Economics scholars draw on the evolutionary theory to claim that competition leads to the best results (the evolution to efficiency rule). But evolution to efficiency paradigm ignores the path-dependent nature of legal change in the common law system. Each choice is made within a constrained set of circumstances.Evolution to efficiency theory of law fails to recognize reality but is also a mistaking of evolutionary theory. Argues that there is an inbuilt tendency toward resistance in the common law. Also discusses new evolutionary theory and punctuated equilibrium or periods of rapid change. This c an correspond with change in the law when, for example, a line of authority is developed by the lower courts and is then appealed to the higher courts. This moment may be seen as a punctuation of the biological model. In this sense new evolutionary theory bears some resemblance to critical junctures or critical moments in path dependence. Critical junctures arise as moments of rapid change followed by a period of stability, the legacy of each critical juncture remains intact until some later critical juncture arrives to change and shape the political and institutional arrangements. invoice constrains critical junctures but each provides an opportunity for sweeping change .Sequencing path dependency.Litigants seeking a significant impact on the law should seek out (or attempt to create) punctuations, for it is only during punctuations that major change is possible (650).Marital enthrallAt one time the common law provided that a man could not commit the crime of rape on his married cleaning woman. Rape was not possible within the confines of a lawful trades union.The rule stems from a statement attributed to the noble Chief Justice, Lord Justice Hale, in the core of the 18th century. Lord Hale described that law as being that the hubby cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband which she cannot retract.This extract is attributed to Lord Justice Hale in History of Common Pleas, (1736) or The History of the Pleas of the Crown. It was later repeated in other sources, for example Archbolds Pleadings and Evidence in Criminal Cases (1822).This is not the law today. The process of change was slow.R v Clarence (1888) 22 QBD 23.In this case a wife made allegations of assault against her husband. This is not a case where rape was alleged. Instead the wife claimed that the husband had carried out an assault under s.20 and s.47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861).Justice Wills saidIf telling under the circumstances now in question imbed an assault on the part of the man, it must constitute rape, unless, indeed, as between married persons rape is impossible, a proposition to which I certainly am not prepared to assent, and for which there seems to me to be no sufficient authority.The decision in Clarence was that the husband was not guilty of assault was based on the Courts assessment of the law which included an acceptance of the rule that a woman gives implied consent to the act of sexual intercourse.R v Clarke (1949) 2 All ER 448, 1949 33 Crim App R 216.In this case a man was military commissiond with the rape of his wife at a time when the friction match were still married but there was insularity order in place. The musical interval order had been based on the ground of the husbands persistent cruelty. The separation order contained a clause that the wife was no longer bound to cohabit w ith the husband. At the time of the alleged disrespect she in fact was not cohabiting with her husband. Defence counsel applied to the court to quash the charge of rape on the ground that it did not disclose any offence known to the law.Justice Byrne held that there was a general proposition of law that a husband cannot be guilty of the rape of his wife.No doubt, the reason is that on marriage the wife consents to the husbands exercise of the marital right of intercourse during such time as the ordinary relations created by the marriage contract subsist between them.The consent to marital intercourse which was implied and given by the wife at the time of the marriage was revoked by the separation order.R v Miller (1954) 2 QB 282.In this case a wife left her husband and filed a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery. The hearing of the petition for divorce was adjourned for the husband to attend. After this licentiousness of the divorce case the husband met with the wife an d had intercourse with her against her will.