Logical Reasoning and Judicial Decision-Making

The term “logical thinking” refers to a thought process that includes making decisions about something or a situation; as a result, it should be relevant and offer the best solution to the issue or circumstance. A situation is deemed to assume a logical position when it can be explained with enough supporting evidence. Given the significance of the choice being made, logical reasoning is sometimes referred to as critical thinking. Logical reasoning is the process of reasoning used in law to justify how a particular judgment decision or result comes to be. (The Open University, 2017a, p.11). In legal logical reasoning, several logical steps are applied to a scenario to reach a final logical decision.

In the judicial decision-making process, three forms of logical reasoning are usually relevant. These forms are inductive, deductive and analogy reasoning (The Open University, 2017a, p.12). First, in the judicial decision-making process, deductive reasoning is applied. Deductive reasoning draws a particular conclusion based on a general principle determined at the start of the process. When using deductive reasoning to make a judicial decision, the first step is to develop the major premise. Usually, a general statement that is known to be true by everyone is considered the major premise. The statement criminal offenses are unlawful is an example of the major premise that can be used in deductive reasoning. The minor premise is the second step that is to be undertaken in the deductive process. At this step, another statement known to be true engaged in the smaller part of the major premise and a particular case. For example, a murder is a criminal offense can be used as the minor premise in the reasoning process. The conclusion is the final step of deductive reasoning. At this step what is known from the two premises, and fits in the largest category and develop a new conclusion about the specific case (The Open University, 2017a, p.15). For instance, following major and minor premises used, it can be concluded that murder is unlawful; hence, the judicial can make their decision.

The second form of logical reasoning that is used in the judicial decision-making process is inductive reasoning, which is considered to be an opposite of the deductive reasoning process. In inductive reasoning, specific outcomes of cases are used to construct a general principle that can be applied to the case at hand. The process involved in inductive reasoning follows the reversal of the processes used in deductive reasoning. The objective of the process is to find out the category, which several related scenarios lays and how they can be correctly described so that all observable aspect of the category are considered. The understanding of the general category helps the judiciary in learning something new about the specific scenario they are dealing with hence determining the decision being made. The process involves examining present examples of related scenarios and forming a general idea that can be used for deductive reasoning in other cases (The Open University, 2017a, p.17). Therefore, inductive reasoning is a process of forming a hypothesis for a general rule using the present evidence that supports the theory, hence, the process is not as rigorous as in deductive thinking.

The last form of logical thinking that is applied in judicial decision-making is analogy reasoning. It is considered a branch of inductive reasoning. In analogy reasoning, conclusive decisions are made by drawing conclusions from specific examples, which have similar aspect as the scenario at hand. The fact that several specific cases are analogous to another is the foundation on which the decision on the current specific case is based. Analogy reasoning process requires that something specific to the case at hand should be stated to show how the case relates to other previous examples in particular ways. In the judicial decision-making process, the use of analogy reasoning is similar to the use of case precedents. Before decision-making, the judiciary must be aware of the previous cases that may be having similar elements as the current one (The Open University, 2017a, p.19). Based on these similarities, the judiciary can conclude that the case belongs to a similar category with the analogous selected hence the same legal outcome can be applied to the case.

Question 2: Significance of Blameworthiness

In the UK when an individual is at fault, the person is considered to be blamed. The blame placed on the individuals is because they have committed something wrong and they have to be held responsible for their wrongdoings. Two forms of wrongs are usually considered in the law, which are criminal and civil wrongs. The process of distinguishing between the criminal and civil wrongs is complicated because the same conduct can result in both criminal and civil wrongs (The Open University, 2017b, p.10). The moral wrongfulness of an act can also be used to distinguish between criminal and civil wrongs. However, moral wrongfulness tends to be insufficient in explaining both the aspects of wrongfulness (The Open University, 2017b, p.13). The degree of moral blameworthiness involved can however be used to distinguish crimes from civil wrongs in the UK.

It is a general principle in both civil and criminal processes that a person is not considered liable for wrongs committed unless they are at fault in committing the mistakes. In criminal law, a person should be held accountable for a crime committed if the individual is viewed as blameworthy in the eyes of the law. The blameworthy of a person has to be determined by the subjective state of mind (The Open University, 2017b, p.23). For instance, if a person deliberately hits another person, the person is not considered blameworthy unless it is determined by the law. Similarly, in civil law, an individual is held liable for a wrongdoing only when it is established that the person acted with fault leading to blameworthy. However, blameworthy that leads to liability is much less serious in civil law than in criminal law. Therefore, it is easy for a person to be found blameworthy following the law of tort.

Consequently, in criminal law, blameworthy is supposed to be a state of mind and should be characterized by a guilty mind. Following the concept of blameworthy, a person can easily be found blameworthy in civil law than in criminal law due to the subjective state of mind that is required in criminal law (The Open University, 2017b, p.25). The main difference between blameworthy in civil and criminal laws, therefore, lies in the subjective states of mind that of fault that is sued in criminal law. Furthermore, in civil law, blameworthy of an individual can be determined by the conduct that led to the wrongdoing. For example, a negligent individual is considered blameworthy in civil law even their negligence is not a subjective state of mind but conduct that has been below the required standards. In criminal law, there are arguments that the law should reflect the society’s conception of blameworthy conduct. Further, the blameworthy will be applied to the conduct of the person (The Open University, 2017b, p.28). However, it has not been successful; hence, the application of blameworthiness in criminal law is limited to only the subjective state of mind of the individual when committing a wrongdoing.

Question 3: Reflection on TMA

When working on the TMA, there have been particular difficulties and enjoyable elements, which I have encountered. First, the most enjoyable aspect of this work is the ease of understanding the materials that are required to provide responses to the questions. The materials have been implied for learning provides sufficient evidence that can be used to answer the questions in this TMA. Furthermore, the materials have provided a better understanding of various concepts of law.

However, one major difficulty encountered has been the length of the materials provided. The attached materials have been very long; hence, they have taken most of the time spent in working on the TMA. Additionally, most parts of the documents have been irrelevant to TMA needs. Therefore, the next time I am working on the TMA, I will have to go through the questions first to understand what they need and scan the materials for only relevant information I can find to save time spent on reading materials and provide more detailed and comprehensive answers to the questions.

References

The Open University. (2017a). An introduction to Law_ Unit 13 : Judicial reasoning and politics. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes : The Open University.

The Open University. (2017b). An introduction to Law_ Unit 14 : Concepts in criminal and civil liability. Walton Hall, Milton Keynes : The Open University.