Critical Analysis of Differing Approaches in Legal Reasoning
When a judgment is made in Australian law, it is apparent that there can often be differing approaches taken when attempting to reach this judgment. There are two common views which are frequently taken in this situation, that of the activist reasoning, and that of the positivist reasoning. Each of these has the potential to introduce judge-made bias, and commonly arises from the judge's background or social origin. When considering a case, it is often possible to determine which approach the judge took in reaching the judgment, by taking into account the method of reasoning and authority the judge utilized. In the case of Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) (the Australian Capital Television case), Chief Justice Mason and Justice Dawson administer two examples of judicial reasoning, and each will be analyzed and critiqued throughout this essay.
In order to successfully analyze the opposing judicial approaches, it is necessary to first define each. A judge who takes the view of positivist reasoning commonly favours logic and ethics. The judge will generally allow "consideration to actual practice over what is ideal." In simple terms, positivist judges will run by the letter of the law, with no contemplation of what may be more suitable.…
- Comparison of Individual Right Indicated in the Bill of Rights and Constitution of Latvia
- Critical Analysis of Differing Approaches in Legal Reasoning
- Why study the Holocaust in Latvia
E-pasta adrese, uz kuru nosūtīt darba saiti:
Saite uz darbu: