Legal Rules & Reasoning
This is an excerpt from the paper...
The main purpose of Greenawalt's discussion is to show that those who insist that it is impossible to determine exact meanings from the letter of the law are simply not correct. He does agree that interpretation of the law entails problems, and he indirectly acknowledges that there is often a difference between objectivity--which comes down to impartiality--as a desirable value and the law as it is actually applied. However, this is not the same as declaring that for all cases it is impossible to find objective certainty in the law because of the possible multiple interpretations of the same law from a linguistic and judicial point of view. From one point of view, Greenawalt appears to be arguing in favor of a little common sense in respect of how the law is conceptualized. But in a larger sense, he is making the assertion that even certain thoughtful arguments against the view that the law can be objective do not withstand the ability of the law to declare itself unambiguously. Greenawalt does not claim that there is never a distinction to be made between what the law is or turns out to be and what it should be. But even where judicial interpretation may be idiosyncratic, incorrect, or even unjust, the weight of evidence is on the side of the view that the law is far more often (and more usefully) determinate than indeterminate. In other words, exploring the content of what is indeterminate about the law belongs to a different exercise than "proving" that it is not always de
. . .
o be leashed, even where the law is not explicit down to every single tiny little detail, meanings are nevertheless made and further, deliberate misunderstanding of meaning or idiosyncratic interpretation of a law that has the same effect as having followed the law is no defense against breaking the law. Thus in the example, Olive cannot claim that she need not leash her dog because she has it under control without doing violence to either the letter or meaning of the law. On the other hand, Quentin can plausibly claim that he did not break the law because the broken leash, which is no fault of the owner, falls outside the domain of the legal standards by which violations may be judged.
Assuming that a law functions determinately within its competent legal jurisdiction, it may still be indeterminate owing to the manner in which facts are found or interpreted. That is, in a dispute, facts will be presented according to a particular point of view, in language meant to persuade as much as inform. Advocates of indeterminacy would say this proves the impossibility of reaching objective meaning in the law. Greenawalt accepts the potential for bias in this regard, but he asserts that "shared assumptions about linguistic meaning and soci
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
, According Greenawalt, Supreme Court, leash law, York Oxford, legal standards, meaning law, rule law, example leash, greenawalt takes view, elements law enforcement, legal rules, discretionary elements law, law enforced, definite answers, discretionary elements, issues law,
Approximate Word count = 1991
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
More Essays on Legal Rules & Reasoning
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
