82,503
edits
Special pleading: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{a|psychology|}}{{agency paradox capsule}}") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|psychology|}}{{agency paradox capsule}} | {{a|psychology|}}{{agency paradox capsule}} | ||
Examples abound. The JC, because he is [[sloth|lazy]] is an inveterate ''simplifier''. There is not a contract in the world, he is fond of saying, that could not be half the length it is. This is hardly a controversy: you will find any practising lawyer to whom you make this observation in violent agreement. So too, the law society, regulatory bodies and legislators. The [[SEC]] has written impassioned tracts imploring practitioners to be brief. The European Commission won't let you even market securities unless you are [[K.I.I.D.|curt to the point of bluntness]]. It is widely acknowledged, that most legal discourse is overwrought; much of it hot air. | |||
Yet we find a curious dissonance: for however passionately a [[legal eagle]] may agree about this ''in the abstract'', it will be a different story ''in the particular'', especially where the particular in question is ''her own document''. This we call a ''[[paradox]]''. You know how the JC loves a [[paradox]]. | |||
Now everything in the [[legal eagle]]’s armoury is arranged around the [[analogy]]. This is ''[[stare decisis]]'': the [[doctrine of precedent]]. The common lawyer proceeds exclusively by [[anecdote]]. She treats each case on its merit. | |||
{{c|paradox}} | |||