Example Of Essay On Consider What The Judges Have Said;

Is it ever morally (a) justifiable, (b) excusable to kill and eat a human being?

Foster J: Excusable because they were no longer a part of society;
This is one of the fictitious legal cases where judges and other prosecutors are in a state of allegory. This case as it was written by Lon Luvo is Fuller presented the clear understanding of both the positivists and natural law. To start with, various naturalists argued in line with morality and law and only legal validity determined the moral obligations. On the other hand naturalists strong believed and advocated for purposive interpretations. Legal positivists on the other hand believed that the laws should exist but with limited connectivity to moral issues. The case as it was presented by Fuller was to test on morality and legal issues. The case was therefore argued by different judges each of them giving different opinions according to their own understanding.
According to Justice Foster who is from the natural jurisprudence, gives his opinion as per the understanding of morality and law. His reasoning was probably one of the best according to modern legal schools and philosophy of justice. He argues that the case was supposed to be argued within the law and trial court had to interpret this case purposively basing its judgment on law statutes. In his own argument, he disregards the thoughts that the defendants were guilty and therefore they needed not to face the sharp knife of the law. According to him, “an individual who was entitled to self-defense”, applied and hence all the defendants were not guilty basing his argument on positive law.
The positive jurisprudence thoughts emphasizes on positive law and hence such a condition will only disappear if and only if positive laws ceased to exist.
The judge believes that one can go against any law without interfering with the law itself. He ridiculously argued that the law allowed one to kill if and only if he or she wanted to defend his or her endangered life. Justice Foster argues that the case happened outside the boundaries of his country and therefore the law where the defendants were being judged was in applicable and therefore self-defense was applicable.

Handy J: Excusable because common sense assessment of the situation should apply;

Truepenny CJ: Not excusable due to strict application of the law, possible clemency by executive;
Keen J: Not excusable due to strict application.
Discuss the theories in respect to the facts of the case;
A positivist application would mean that it is not justifiable because the law must be followed absolutely. There is no ambiguity to allow any analysis.

However, from a natural law perspective .

Include any extrinsic arguments that you wish to make (i.e. academic resources, cases, own opinion etc).

In comparison to cases such as Dudley v Stephens and the Andes plane crash situation.

Conclude: In consideration of the above factors, it is not morally justifiable to kill and eat a human being in any circumstances. However, it may differ if the person is deceased and it is a survival situation.
Whether or not it is morally justifiable or excusable, is it legally justifiable to kill and eat a human being in order to save a human life? Alternatively, is necessity a defence to the charge of murder?

Discuss the theories in respect to the facts of the case;

Include any extrinsic arguments that you wish to make (i.e. academic resources, cases, own opinion etc).

What is the connection, if any, between moral and legal justifications or excuses to kill and eat a human being?

Discuss the theories in respect to the facts of the case;
Include any extrinsic arguments that you wish to make (i.e. academic resources, cases, own opinion etc).
What is the proper role of a judge in deciding a difficult case on a question of law? How does this differ from the role of other officials?
Discuss the theories in respect to the facts of the case;
Include any extrinsic arguments that you wish to make (i.e. academic resources, cases, own opinion etc).
What kind of reasons are admissible, valid, and cogent in (a) reaching, (b) justifying a judicial decision in a hard case? What is the relationship between (a) and (b)? In particular, should public opinion be taken into account in reaching and justifying such decisions? Do (a) citizen (b) judges owe an indefensible duty of fidelity to the law?
Discuss the theories in respect to the facts of the case;
Include any extrinsic arguments that you wish to make (i.e. academic resources, cases, own opinion etc).

REACH YOUR OWN DECISION ON THE CASE;

Guilty;
Not guilty;
Guilty with clemency recommendation.