In Chapter 12 of Epstein, it discusses how Reasoning by Analogy is used in the law. The section explained that in law these type of arguments are the most used because it gives a chance for lawyers to provide details, that are carefully analyzed arguments. SInce laws are vague and not specific it is difficult for the Supreme Court, federal courts, state courts, county courts, and local courts.
The most common Reasoning by Analogy used in the law is reasoning by example. It is used based on a case for case basis. Edward H. Levi’s An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, discusses how "any case sets a precedent for other cases. By setting a precedent with any law the law becomes more specific based on the ruling of the judge." There are always cases that are later over ruled. The most important case in which this occured was Brown v. The Board of Education. The case allowed the “equal but separate” precedent for many cases until nearly a hundred years later when the case was considered wrong.
The most common Reasoning by Analogy used in the law is reasoning by example. It is used based on a case for case basis. Edward H. Levi’s An Introduction to Legal Reasoning, discusses how "any case sets a precedent for other cases. By setting a precedent with any law the law becomes more specific based on the ruling of the judge." There are always cases that are later over ruled. The most important case in which this occured was Brown v. The Board of Education. The case allowed the “equal but separate” precedent for many cases until nearly a hundred years later when the case was considered wrong.
I loved your explanation of Reasoning by the Law. Good job! I found this part of the chapter pretty interesting as well. It made me think or wonder how many judges are dealing with a difficult task of figuring out what laws should be over ruled and what shouldn't. I mean, there are certain cases (I bet) that they wish they can over rule the law for but if they did that for one case, they would have to do that for every other case as well and that's just not fair. Judges, especially in the Supreme Courts, are faced with the difficult task of deciding the destiny of someone's life even if that means live or die.
ReplyDelete