REVIEW NOTES DOC - REVIEW NOTES MINUS CASES Court presents...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
REVIEW NOTES – MINUS CASES Court presents reasons for  o Future hearings o Public conduct o Public acceptance, approval Courts enforce contracts o Public can rely on court’s enforcing rules, ordinances in place o Confirm conclusions and extend into future o We rely on judges to at in accordance to law Legal Realism o Judge Jerome Frank o Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. – “Common Law” o Holmes’s Dictum Law is a set of prophecies of what judges, jury will do o Judges aren’t required to  o Judges have their biases, then use those biases to piece together law-like  language to make intuitions seem correct o We make too much of convenient, logical view of reasoning o Thesis: the “standard account” of judicial reasoning of (the kind Golding  describes in ch 1) is radically mistaken  o Argument: underscores difficulty of separating biases from justifying reasons in  judicial decision-making o Presents a cynical account of giving reasons
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Ex post facto outcomes: outcomes invented in the course of review of the facts Defensive rationalization that courts offer to make them seem more reasonable than they actually are Takes some “reasons” to be ex post facto principles Insists that interest in desired results conditions the interplay of state rules and sentencing Evidence: Leon A. Tulin’s ex. Of Georgia and Iowa courts’ treatment o drunk driving offense Highlights the dominance of the conclusion (the idea that conclusion drives the argument, not vice versa) Corroboration: Judge Hutcheson’s autobiographical remarks about his “hunch” theory (reliance on the intuitive sense of right and wrong) Regards principles, policies, and rules simply as several “stimuli” among others influencing judges o Frank’s definition of law: A. actual law (i.e. a specific past decision) or B. probable law (i.e. a guess as to a specific future decision) Tulin’s Example: Facts: A speeder recklessly hits B, causing sever injuries Issues: Is A liable for the crime of 1. Assault with intent to kill or 2. Reckless driving Assumption: 1 is much more serious than 2; punishment for 1 is more serious than 2 Court X (Iowa): no assault w/ intent to kill w/o actual purpose to cause death, so A is liable for reckless driving
Background image of page 2
Court Y (Georgia):  assault w/ intent to kill where there is reckless disregard of the lives  of others (recklessness) can be construed with intent to kill and A is liable for assault w/  intent to kill even if he does not actually have intentions to kill o Each court will come up with different conclusions based on precendents Surprising result: Actual sentences in Courts X and Y are similar Explanation: o Court X tends to construe reckless driving as a serious offense and impose 
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 11

REVIEW NOTES DOC - REVIEW NOTES MINUS CASES Court presents...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online