1. Explain why it might be difficult to effectively study law following the positive transition. What are the advantages and disadvantages of a humanistic approach to the study of law?
Studying law is relatively difficult as the degree holds much of the responsibilities to sort out the issue concerned with the society (ANU, 2014). As the law have definite rules and abstracts, the application of such rules and structure can be ineffectively applied which requires the ultimate result to reach. In addition, such structures are difficult to be applied in every situation and thus, it is important to understand the situation and the means of structure where it can provide the complete solution to the problem. It also involves the articulation of complex facts which are also tricky to understand.
Advantages – it provides the understanding to view the person as an active agent and also promotes the idea of self-responsibility. The humanistic approach also enables the professional to work on the subjective experiences of an individual.
Disadvantages – it enables the professional to put much emphasis on the subjective experience. The working is based on the non-directional approaches which require immense explanations for each action and rule. Despite the application, the humanistic approach restricts to falsify the situation.
2. According to the radical critique of law, how does law discriminate?
Along with many other policies, the law also stresses on the discrimination which
The first chapter of “Law in America” by Lawrence M. Friedman is an introduction to the formation of the law system that we have in the United States today. The opening of the chapter depicts how Freidman starts his lectures, by reading the front few pages of the local newspaper to his very lethargic students who take his early class. At first, this seems odd given that this is not a political science class or media lecture. However, the logic behind this process is that in every “domestic” article in the news there is a connection to the law. Law is intertwined in almost every situation we face during, not only our day to day lives but also the very structure that forms the environment we live in.
To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.
The author also finds out that the application of the law raises questions on the proportionality in which it is applied, particularly to petty theft cases. Because of the lack of clarity in which the law can be applied, legislatures and citizens have the right to redefine the law and its
The way of knowing about the Law leaves out important aspects of the society, “legal language flattens and confines in absolutes the complexity of meaning inherent in any given problem […] a paradigm of larger social perceptions that divide public from private, black from white, dispossessed from legitimate” (Williams, 1991, pp. 6-7). The quote explains the way in law many aspects of the social life, of reality, as left out. This division in Law leaves out important aspects that should be taken into consideration. Legal language can disguise important cultural, social, historical aspects that may affect the interpretation and the consequences of a legal decision or a law, by its way of “flattening” important topics. Therefore, the Law is not written in stone and aspects of reality should be taken into consideration.
As the rule of law, it focuses on the equal treatment and absence
Laws are universal, although they must be applied to particular cases with unique circumstances. In order to do this, judges interpret the law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote it. Presumably, a Justice’s judicial philosophy is at least somewhat associated with his/her political ideology. For instance, if a Justice has conservative beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial restraint”–the theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit (or restrain) the exercise of their own power. Conversely, if a Justice has more liberal beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial activism”–the theory of judicial interpretation that is suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law–or simply, broad(-er) interpretation.
The law should hold itself to it’s own standards in order to be
In his book, “The Law”, Frederic Bastiat aims to counter the trend in legislation which he identified in France during his life. A legislator himself, Bastiat worried that the scope of the law had expanded far past what was just and thus performed the very acts of greed and plunder which it should aim to prevent. Bastiat based his argument on the idea that the essence of man is found in his personality, liberty, and property. The role of law is to protect these faculties of man, and anything beyond is abuse of power and legal plunder. Bastiat views these elements which comprise man as innate.
Nozick proposes a definition of justice surrounding liberty. An entitlement theory comprising of three principles which result in freedom to be absolutely entitled to property and the self. His argument maintains that patterned principles of just distribution depart from this historical scheme and, in doing so, involve unacceptable infringements of liberty. Nozick defends his entitlement theory with a Wilt Chamberlain illustration. Despite being a persuasive and strong argument, the difficult aspect of this is that Nozick does not clearly tell us how to properly satisfy what those three principles require under the perception that his argument could shut down his patterned theory competitors.
According to Gloria Steinem, “Law and justice are not always the same”. This quote means that following the law may not always mean justice is being served. Laws are rules and guidelines that are set up to govern behavior. Laws set out standards, procedures
Our Constitution permits and even directs the State to administer what may be termed 'distributive justice '. The concept of distributive justice in the sphere of law-making connotes, inter alia, the removal of economic inequalities and rectifying the injusticeresulting from dealings or transaction between unequals in society. Law should be used as an instruments of distributive justice to achieve a fair division of wealth among the members of society based upon the principle: 'From each according to his capacity, to each according to his
In hard cases, judges are not legislating, as Hart’s positivists assert, they are inducing based on principle. Judges have a duty not only to apply the rules, but also to make sure that the legal system is consistent with the principles of the society. When judges are said to legislate, they are not making the rules but discovering them. [20] According to Dworkin understanding the role of the courts is to defend the rights of citizens from the likelihood of unfair rules or other circumstances in which the written laws do not satisfactorily defend their natural rights.
The Introduction The precedent is a decided legal case, which is used as a basis for deciding later similar cases. The English Law system is a legal system where the precedent has a great weight. This law system can be subdivided into two main interrelated branches: statute (or statutory) law and common law. Statute is an Act of Parliament, which starts its life as a bill, goes through the parliament, receives royal assent and becomes law.
The law is an intriguing concept, evolving from society’s originalities and moral perspectives. By participating in the legal system, we may endeavour to formulate a link between our own unique beliefs and the world in which we live. Evidently, a just sense of legality is a potent prerequisite for change, enabling society to continue its quest for universal equality and justice. Aristotle once stated that "even when laws have been written down, they ought not to remain unaltered".
What I will explain to you in this article will, how we are connected with the law and I hope, make you see sense in the importance of our laws in the society we live in. To be against the importance of laws in our society would show one to be ignorant and naïve. I encounter the law on a daily basis when I am driving. I have to follow the speed limit of each road, I have to signal before changing lanes, my vehicle must be in good condition in order to safely drive and I must obey all road signs as they are set in place to ensure the safety of everybody.