What Does Legal Reasoning Mean

Legal reasoning proceeds in a deductive or inductive manner, but it is important to remember that these terms are defined a little more narrowly in legal reasoning than in logic. In law, deductive reasoning generally means moving from the general to the specific, that is, from the establishment of a rule to its application to a particular legal case. Many legal textbooks refer to inductive reasoning as the process of moving from the specific to the general. It comes into play every time we move from a specific case or legal advice to a general rule. One type of experiential reasoning discussed in Chapter 10 (Analogous Reasoning) is crucial to legal reasoning, but does not conform to the standard legal definition of inductive reasoning. Nevertheless, legal reasoning is based on precedents (a court decision that can be applied to subsequent cases) and similar cases often on analogies. Consistency plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of legal reasoning and guiding judges in attempting to interpret the law correctly. Coherence is not just the logical consistency of decisions. Rather, it is treated as integrity in the interpretation of the law. 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, some authors argue that persuasion, not justification, is the goal 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. But even purely deductive reasoning may justify a judicial decision if the main premise is an established rule of the legal system; The secondary premise consists of proven facts. Second, the conclusion must be true and can be normatively justified. While legal considerations may include rules found in laws, precedents, diktats, and legal principles, non-legal considerations include moral values, practical limits, or consequences. There are several important concepts in legal reasoning that you should be aware of. These include: Deductive reasoning is only applicable if a clear principal premise has been established. According to one scholarly commentator, deductive reasoning is of limited use in legal reasoning. This form of reasoning leaves no room for examining the truth or non-truth of premises.

This means that when an already decided case discovers a new rule, it regulates similar cases that must be decided. Analogy plays an important role in legal reasoning to make the decision coherent and coherent. The analogous thought process is to determine the similarity between the previous case and the present case and to determine the ratio decidendi of the previous case and apply it to the present case. The most common form of analogous thinking in the common law system is the precedent by which court decisions are recognized as a valid source of law. In previous cases, judges must decide the cases before them on the basis of existing precedents in the field. Here, the court justifies its decision and helps other courts, lawyers and judges to use and respect the judgment in subsequent proceedings. Therefore, the “Discussion or Analysis” section must be well-founded and written. 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. Essentially, legal reasoning can be defined as reasoning used to explain, guide, interpret and evaluate laws, legal principles and standards.

Knowledge of the law and facts is therefore a prerequisite for legal justification. When it comes to “legal argumentation,” the term “argumentation” must first be defined. The term “reasoning” is used to refer to the leadership process, the decision on a particular course of action, and a decision-making process. The term “legal reasoning” is used both broadly and narrowly. In a broader sense, it refers to the psychological processes by which judges make decisions in those before them. The main thesis of Levi`s treatment of legal reasoning is that the determination of analogies is a crucial element in such reasoning. Some basic elements emerge in the reasoning and must be taken into account: the legal justification is often to determine whether the case currently pending before the courts is relevant like other cases previously decided. 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. 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. 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. Although analogous thinking is closely related to the invocation of precedents, the courts also invoke it to interpret statutes. Justification implies that the same rules of logic should discipline good legal reasoning. Therefore, logical soundness is one of the important aspects of legal reasoning.

The analogy is also very similar to “inductive thinking.” In general, the process of inductive reasoning involves several observations and then the formulation of a principle of general application. 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.” Any legal system uses analogous reasoning in one form or another to justify judicial decisions. Through legal reasoning, judges justify their decisions to the interested public, including the parties to the proceedings, all others who may be directly affected by the decision, the legal profession and the community. In other words, analogous thinking requires that similar cases be treated equally. 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. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to address the elements mentioned in a clear and concise manner. This can be done with deductive or analytical thinking.

Among the various forms of legal argumentation, analogy is most commonly used in judicial decisions and legal interpretations. These processes are made up of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, feelings, and emotions. In a narrower sense, legal reasoning deals with a judge`s decision on points of law. The requirement of moral reason as a criterion of good reasoning involves the 3 points; There are two main forms of legal reasoning as reasoning by analogy: inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. However, judges rarely use these technical vocabularies in their decisions. 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. Legal reasoning is the process of conceiving, reflecting on or justifying legal acts and decisions or justifications of speculative opinions about the meaning of the law and its relevance to action. Many contemporary authors such as Aulis Aarnio (1987), Robert Alexy (1988), Manuel Atienza (1991) and Aleksander Peczenik (1989) argue that legal reasoning is a particular example of general practical thinking. They assume, that is, reasoning can be related to action, guiding someone on what to do, or showing whether there are good reasons for a proposed course of action or for something already done. They also assume that reason is thus linked to legal decisions. Both hypotheses are justified. The law regulates what to do and how to respond to what has been done, within an institutional framework composed of legislators, courts, law enforcement agencies, etc.

One of the characteristics of legal institutions is that they are expected to have good reasons for what they do, and generally to give them good reasons, in public. Legal reasoning is therefore not only a special case of practical argumentation, but a particularly public case. Legal reasoning shows why and how the court, lawyer or judge came to his or her decision or reasoning in the case. The legal argument is also based on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning generally involves applying a general rule that arises from a particular statute or case and can be applied to a particular case, and then drawing a conclusion. Indeed, the contours of legal reasoning are profoundly shaped by “the perceived necessities of the time, the prevailing moral and political theories, and public policy intuitions, whether explained or unconscious, even by the prejudices that judges share with their fellow men.” However, legal argumentation is mainly related to judicial application and interpretation of the law. As a result, legal reasoning in the common law system gives considerable weight to arguments about the consequences of the application of legislation and judicial decisions.