Legal Positivism Case Analysis

Summary

Legal positivism emphasizes adherence to the law as written, without moral considerations. In Brown v. Board of Education, judges like Bentham, Hume, and Austin might uphold segregation if it aligns with existing laws. In The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, judges like Aquinas, Fuller, and Finnis might consider moral aspects, potentially leading to leniency, while Hart and Bentham would focus on legal rules, possibly resulting in stricter outcomes.

Full Conversation

*. The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens, (*)* Tom Dudley, Edward Stephens, Edmund Brooks, and Richard Parker were caught in a bad storm while on the English yacht Mignonette * miles from land in the South Atlantic. The yacht was damaged by the storm, forcing the four men to abandon it and escape in a small open boat. They had no supply of food and water except for two tins of turnips. On the fourth day they were able to catch a small turtle, which they completely consumed by the twelfth day. Parker, against the advice of the others, began to drink seawater, and became ill b Taking an assumption that the accused appeared before a panel of judges including St. Thomas Aquinas, Lon L. Fuller and John Finnis, discuss the possible outcome of the cases. (* %) c. Would your answer be different from the above had the judges been H.L. Hart and Jeremy Bentham? (* %) * https://www.law.msu.edu/faculty_staff/cand
It seems you are working on a comparative legal analysis involving different judicial philosophies. For clarity:
The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens:
- St. Thomas Aquinas: Likely to consider natural law principles, focusing on the moral aspects and divine law.
- Lon L. Fuller: May argue on procedural justice, emphasizing the consistency and coherence of legal rules.
- John Finnis: Likely to consider the basic goods and the moral justification of the accused's actions.
Possible Outcome:
Aquinas, Fuller, and Finnis might consider the moral and ethical dilemmas faced by the accused, potentially leading to a more lenient outcome.
Different Judges (H.L. Hart and Jeremy Bentham):
- H.L. Hart: Would focus on the separation of law and morality, emphasizing the legal positivist perspective.
- Jeremy Bentham: Likely to evaluate based on utilitarian principles, considering the greatest good for the greatest number.
Outcome with Hart and Bentham could be stricter adherence to legal rules without moral considerations.
Does this answer your query?