»Unlabelled » Law & Humanities Blog

Law & Humanities Blog

Law & Humanities Blog

Posted: 27 Oct 2011 03:34 PM PDT

Michael Lobban has published Legal Theory and Judge-Made Law in England, 1850-1920 as Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 91/2011. Here is the abstract.

Many nineteenth century jurists agreed that John Austin's separation of the spheres of law and morality lay the foundations for a scientific analysis of law. However, they remained uneasy with his definition of law as the command of a sovereign, preferring to speak of rules enforced by the state. The jurists who succeeded Austin strove to analyze law in terms of rules enforced by the state, and used Austin's tools to put order to the mass of common law materials. However, when it came to discussing how judges should develop the law, they continued to defend the interpretive approach distinctive of the common law tradition. Rather than identifying rules, this entailed applying principles found in older case law to new situations and thereby adapting the law to the changing needs of the community. Consequently, jurists who found Austin's strict separation of law and morality a useful tool for analysis continued to feel that the interpretative work done by the judges needed to take into account the moral needs of the community, and numerous jurists argued explicitly for a connection between law and morality.

In the debates over codification of the 1860s, many judges and jurists who admired the analytical method which allowed them to make sense of a mass of legal materials resisted the aspiration to put all common law into rules. They explicitly defended the common law as a system of principles. In their view, the problems caused by the proliferation of case law resulted from judges looking to find a rule from every reported case, rather than looking to principles. They therefore argued that efforts should be made to digest the principles of the common law, which would allow the law to continue to develop flexibly by reasoning at case level. In response, a number of analytical jurists argued that if the common law could be seen to generate series of authoritative propositions, they could be codified into rules. For them, a digest was a mere preparatory to a code, where judges would apply and not make law. They specifically linked the analytical project, premised on the separation of law and morality, with the codification project. However, by the 1870s, jurists like J.F. Stephen began to separate the codification project from the analytical one. Instead of needing to find an ideal analytical model, Stephen argued, different areas of law could be codified for convenience. By the end of the century, those who argued for codification no longer felt that it would curtail the role of the judge in developing the law in an interpretive way. 

The article ends by briefly looking at three jurists who accepted Austin's analytical models, while rejecting (in various degrees) his arguments on the separation of law and morals. William Markby, John Salmond and W.
Jethro Brown all argued that legal and moral norms were related, if distinct, and that judges were to look to moral sources, including the moral needs of the community, on developing the law.

Looking Back at "Buck v. Bell"

Posted: 27 Oct 2011 02:47 PM PDT

Edward Larson, Pepperdine University School of Law, has published Putting Buck v. Bell in Scientific and Historical Context in volume 39 of the Pepperdine Law Review (2011). Here is the abstract.

In this article written for a law-review symposium in response to a presentation on the infamous 1927 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Buck v. Bell, Edward J. Larson argues that, at the time that the case was decided, eugenics was on the incline, not the decline. In the 1920s, the American scientific and medical community broadly backed eugenic remedies for various forms of mental illness and retardation. Legislatures, lawyers, and jurists took their cue from this scientific and medical consensus. Absent any question that the statute at issue in Buck v. Bell was validly passed by the Virginia legislature or that due process was provided for the persons subject to its reach, the law should have withstood constitutional challenge. The tragedy of Buck v. Bell, Larson argues, was that Carrie Buck never received the due process guaranteed under Virginia's eugenic sterilization statute and that neither her lawyers nor the courts protected her from a flagrant violation of her basic constitutional and statutory rights. Under the fact that should have been brought out at trial, Carrie Buck would not have been sterilized. More fundamentally, had due process been provided in this and other instances, while eugenics would still have been a scientific and medical mistake, it would not be a legal one.

Download the article from SSRN at the link. 

Shakespeare and War Crimes Trials

Posted: 27 Oct 2011 02:41 PM PDT

Will Fitzgibbon, Australian National University College of Law, has published Visions of Justice: Shakespeare and Duch's Proposed 'Return to Humanity'. Here is the abstract.


Completed in the first half of 2010, this thesis received a First Class and was supervised by Professor Margaret Thornton. This article provides an analysis of the story and the trial of the Khmer Rouge official, Kaing Geuk Eav, alias Duch, in the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) through a Shakespearean lens – particularly drawing upon three plays; The Winter's Tale, Coriolanus, and Richard III. Duch's Defence Counsel Mr Francois Roux contended that the real question of Duch's trial was whether 'the hearings would allow one who has exited from humanity to return to humanity'. Using Shakespearean exempla, the essay examines the persuasiveness of Duch and his Defence team in its effort to have Duch 'return to humanity'. This article first details Duch's life and crimes. In what follows, this article analyses through a Shakespearean lens strengths and weaknesses of the Defence's appeal for Duch's 'return to humanity' in light of his alleged recognition of guilty and expression of remorse.
Download the thesis from SSRN at the link. 
Bookmark and Share