In Epsteins book, Chapter 12 discusses analogies in the law, I found that concept of the chapter interesting. Epstein mentions how most analogies that are made are not detailed and understandable to be good arguments, but when it comes to the law it’s completely different.
Analogies in law are presented as detailed, explicit, and clear which are carefully analyzed arguments that point out important similarities to which a general principle is stated. Laws that are unclear or are vague have to have their similarities and difference pointed so that it is easy to reason with it.
These general principles that are enunciated have to be respected by other judges. It doesn’t state that it is law for a judge to follow/respect other judges’ decisions. The books talks about how judges use this general principle to conclude cases that are thrown at them. They take into account all the differences of each case and make a new decision. They need to decide whether or not to respect or overthrow the previous judges decision.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This is something that I was considering to write about, but didn’t. But I enjoyed reading the way you explained this concept. Analogies in the law were quite interesting because the other analogies were a little hard to grasp at first. Like what you said, Epstein mentions that analogies are made not detailed yet understandable. However, what I like about the analogies of the law is that they are detailed, explicit and clear- as you put it. I am the type of person who needs clarity and detail, so I think that is why I prefer the analogies of the law.
You did a good job explaining the concept of analogies in the law. It is true that the majority of analogies are not good arguments, although these analogies are detailed and are able to convey the similarities, differences and or the general principle. Also in the Epstein’s text I found that it was unfair with judges how they ruled differently and I feel that the law should convict felons on a consistent ruling. For example a person who commits rape is sentenced up to 15 years. And another person who commits rape says, as an excuse is that he is addicted to sex. So his sentence would only be to a rehabilitation center. We must follow a standard for every crime
I like how you explained the laws of chapter 12. I thought it was very helpful learning the different types of laws and reasoning because it helps make arguments easier and stronger. Knowing what type of reasoning is being used or which is best can help make arguments good.
Post a Comment