Methods of Legal Reasoning
To better understand legal reasoning, there are a few key terms to understand. But the contours of legal reasoning are not determined by legal arguments alone. Extrajudicial considerations such as the principles of justice, morality and social policy can be applied in legal decision-making. The book attempts to describe and critique four methods of legal practice, legal dogmatics and legal theory: logic, analysis, argumentation, and hermeneutics. In addition to presenting the basic ideas associated with the above methods, the essays in this book attempt to answer questions about the assumptions behind these methods, the limitations of their application, and their usefulness in legal practice and theory. A peculiarity of the book is that four different, partly competing, concepts of legal methods are discussed in a study. The panorama thus sketched allows an in-depth reflection on the questions of the methodological conditioning of case law and the existence of a single and specific legal method. The authors argue that such a method does not exist. They argue that the methods presented in the book can serve as a basis for building a coherent and useful conception of legal thought. However, each of these conceptions must recognize its own assumptions and limitations arising from the adoption of a particular philosophical attitude. Distinguishing cases is the opposite of reasoning by analogy. In distinguishing the cases, it is argued that the facts of precedent do not coincide with the facts of the present case, so that the rule of precedent is not applicable in this case. For example, a toy poodle is not like a wild animal because toy poodles are not inherently dangerous, so the wildlife case rule that the owner of a wild animal is strictly liable for damage caused by that wild animal should not apply to toy poodles.
The two central forms of legal reasoning are arguments drawn from precedents and analogies. These can be found in many legal systems such as the common law, which is found in both England and the United States. Using policy-based reasoning, the author argues that applying a particular rule to a case would set a precedent that is good for society. For example, in early product liability cases, lawyers argued for strict liability when a product harms a consumer because manufacturers were better able to spread the cost of injury than consumers. Policy-oriented thinking can also be combined with analogous thinking. For example, it can be argued that the policy underlying the precedent rule also applies to this case, so the precedent rule should also apply to this case. Legal argumentation therefore always requires justifications of principle. Justification, according to John Rawls, “seeks to convince others or ourselves of the relevance of the principles on which our claims and judgments are based.” He notes: ” In arguing for the sake of consistency, we argue for ways to make the legal system as close as possible to a rationally structured whole that does not require us to pursue mutually contradictory general objectives.
It also means that the judge, in good legal reasoning, tries to consider all relevant factors in an appropriate impartial manner. Analogous thinking involves noticing similarities between cases and adapting them to new situations. Arguments by analogy are common both for judicial decisions and for the interpretation of legal provisions. Determining similarity or difference is the decisive step in the legal process. Determining similarity or difference is the task of every judge. The legal process does not apply known rules to different facts, but is a system of rules discovered to determine similarity or difference. It is important to note that there are special situations where the above two methods are not sufficient to decide a case, and the judge can then decide according to his or her personal preferences. The fundamental part of legal reasoning is reasoning through examples. This is a case-by-case reasoning. It is a three-step process described by the doctrine of the precedent, where a proposal describing the first case is transformed into the rule of law and then applied to a similar situation next. Legal considerations are often found in the interpretation and application of the law or legal norms in a particular case. An acceptable form of legal reasoning must meet both the requirements of formal legal rules and moral considerations.
However, judges and lawyers often use similar arguments to argue that previous decisions are not sufficiently similar to be relevant to the issue in question. The contour of legal argumentation can be shaped by both formal legal regulations and extra-legal considerations. Formal legislation is the main guideline of legal argumentation. Thus, legal argumentation is applied to the application of the law in jurisprudential argumentation and legal creation. It is a means of drawing decisions from another legal opinion or an existing constitutional or legislative provision and applying them in another case. The rule statement is usually broad and not narrow when deductive reasoning is used. This approach is mechanical and therefore effective only in ideal and often unsatisfactory situations. The important importance of analogous thinking lies in the fact that it introduces a certain stability and predictability into the interpretation of the law. As a result, analogous thinking can develop new laws and learn from comments on the law. In this way, it can initiate legal reform. Inductive reasoning is fundamentally different from the deductive form of thought. The difference between induction and deduction is mainly between justification and proof of a result.
According to one author, legal reasoning methods are the rules of logic usually used by lawyers to support their arguments. Three methods of legal reasoning and logic are: Although analogous thinking is closely related to the invocation of precedents, the courts also invoke it to interpret statutes. While legal considerations may include rules found in laws, precedents, diktats, and legal principles, non-legal considerations include moral values, practical limits, or consequences. The relationship between law and reason is intuitive and universally recognized. Since the law is often said openly, it offers a variety of interpretations and analyses, and judicial decisions are often made through practical argumentation. Legal reasoning must also be persuasive, coherent and coherent in order to make a rationally constructed and integrated decision. Therefore, the integrity of legal principles is at the heart of coherent legal argumentation. In deductive reasoning, a logical conclusion is drawn from the main premise and the secondary premise. The process of deductive reasoning involves the formulation of one or more statements, and then a conclusion is reached by applying the established principles of logic. Analogous thinking is one of the basic principles of the common law.
The difference between deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning is that deductive reasoning is a closed system of reasoning, from general to general or particular. Premises tend to support conclusions in an inductive argument, but they do not force the conclusion. In this way, analogue thinking promotes legal certainty and predictability of judicial decisions. The legal basis of the precedent therefore derives from the fact that it was decided on the basis of legislation and standards, which justifies the application of a particular precedent. The precedents are therefore a matter of the application of prescribed legal rules and norms. Legal reasoning deals with how different considerations contribute to the determination of the law. The word “argumentation” was used by The Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 5. Deductive reasoning is an important part of legal reasoning because lawyers are often asked to decide how a legal principle applies to a particular case. Deductive arguments contain only factual statements, not norms. Reasoned decisions guide others on what the law is and how their cases are likely to be decided in similar cases. In this way, individuals can adjust their future behavior.
A reasoned decision is an integral part of due process and of the rationality of judicial proceedings. There are basic elements that appear in the reasoning that need to be addressed: Please, how to try this kind of question” It can be said that the whole idea of the law involves argumentation. From the outset, application in dispute settlement is indispensable. Examine the above statement in terms of legal reasoning and approach to the problem Some authors argue that persuasion, not justification, is the purpose of legal reasoning. Chaim Perelman is the main proponent of this view. The relevant decision necessarily requires that the statement of reasons be assessed in the light of the persuasiveness of the reasons for the decision.