Essentially, the field of law, and perhaps especially the practice of judicial decision-making, are exercises in practical thinking. There is certainly more to law than logic. However, the myriad of factors that contribute to good legal practice and fair judgment suggest that the “life of the law,” while not just logical, is a variety of activities, all of which use and depend on reason in specialized ways. The level of detail required when drafting contracts, wills, trusts and other legal documents is rational precision; The care that litigators must take in planning and strategy in deciding how to present their case is rational diligence; The written and oral reasoning required for the practice of appeal is obviously a rational ability; the talent expected of administrative judges to produce consistent findings of fact and legal conclusions is a rational talent; And the ability of trial and appellate judges to impartially and impartially separate the core reasoning from rhetorical and emotional chaff from adversarial representation in order to render legally justified judgments is a rational skill. Like many complex issues, legal reasoning is rarely black and white. Children and adolescents learn not only to apply a general rule to a situation, but also to think about how laws should be applied. For example, consider whether the “no motor vehicles in fleet” rule applies to electric wheelchairs. Most of us can intuitively guess that the answer is no, but we may lack the vocabulary to explain why. After all, electric wheelchairs are motorized, and they are vehicles. 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. Another great advantage of young people learning about law is that it helps students argue by analogy.
Such reasoning recognizes that each situation may have similarities with others, but is nonetheless unique. Legal reasoning encourages people to consider the specifics of the situation, as well as the similarities it may have with others. In general, people mostly have to learn the rules of the game by playing. Rarely in life do people get a set of rules in advance about how to succeed at work or in a marriage. Analogical thinking skills help a people identify the right course of action by comparing situations as they experience them. It is a means of drawing decisions from another legal opinion or an existing constitutional or legislative provision and applying them in another case. The rule statement is usually broad and not narrow when deductive reasoning is used. This approach is mechanical and therefore effective only in ideal and often unsatisfactory situations. As an added benefit, people will be less inclined to fall into the trap of rhetorical arguments that trigger an emotional response without offering a clear vision of what should be done and how it can be done effectively. Just as the scientific community advocates for science education so that people can make valid arguments about vaccination and climate change, we hope that good legal education will reduce the spread of the bad legal and political arguments that currently permeate social and political discourse. It is therefore interesting for law practitioners and students to have an understanding of the basic principles of logic that are regularly used in legal reasoning and judicial decision-making. This understanding requires, to a large extent, the ability to navigate the processes of inductive reasoning – the methods of analogy and inductive generalization – by which conclusions are drawn based on past experience and empirical observations.
The common law approach to developing jurisprudence, as well as the general rule often referred to as the “rule of law” – that similar cases are decided immediately – are logically based on inductive reasoning. More broadly, teaching law to young children will give them a set of reasoning skills that are important in many areas of their lives. “Legal thinking” – not just about obeying the rules – changes the way people approach difficult problems because it gives them tools to organize facts and values in order to arrive at an informed and achievable decision. Legal reasoning is a method of thinking and reasoning used by lawyers and judges when applying legislation to certain interactions between legal entities. The legal justification for a court decision can be found in the “Discussion or Analysis” section of the court decision. While it is true that many other factors – from self-interest to moral values, from psychology to science – fuel the decision-making of lawyers and judges, all of these factors carry the pervasive dye of reason and logic. Litigants may rely on the psychology or feelings of the jury, but only to the extent that they reasonably expect to influence the jury to draw rational conclusions in favour of their client. Personal interest may be the sole driving motive of each party in drafting a contract, but the rational recognition that insisting on onerous provisions is likely to undermine the entire contractual agreement tends to keep everyone`s self-interest at bay. And although judicial practice requires a high degree of “value judgment” in the selection, interpretation and application of legal principles, these value judgments are not exempt from the constraints of reason. As one appeals court noted, “All legal analysis should begin at the point of reason, follow a logical path, and arrive at a fundamentally fair result.” (Sunrise Lumber v. Johnson, Appointment No. 165).
To criticize, annul or annul an administrative or judicial decision as “arbitrary”, “capricious”, “not supported by the law” or “contrary to jurisprudence” means to say no more, no less, that the decision lacks logic and reason. There are good reasons to remain skeptical of overly rationalistic representations of law and judicial practice. The web of historical doctrine, legal principles, and factual nuances that underlies every judicial decision is far too complicated to permit critical evaluation using a single method of evaluation, including the principles of logic. We are therefore rightly concerned when we recall the formalist visions of nineteenth-century jurists – visions that found the essence of jurisprudence in the logical derivation of conclusions necessarily required by predetermined legal principles. The above is an excerpt from Professor Douglas Lind`s book Logic and Legal Reasoning (2nd edition, The National Judicial College Press, 2007). Lind, who is a professor in the philosophy department at the University of Idaho in Moscow and a lawyer, teaches the logic portion of the NJC`s logic and opinion writing course. The logic part of the course is a two-day immersion in logic, where participants learn a foundation in deductive and inductive logic and have the opportunity to discuss the use of logic in legal reasoning. It is important to note that there are special situations where the above two methods are not sufficient to decide a case, and the judge can then decide according to his or her personal preferences. Equally important is a second basic category of reasoning – deductive logic, especially the forms of deductive arguments known as “syllogisms.” These are the classic forms of the deductive argument, which consist of a main premise, a secondary premise, and a conclusion. It was this aspect of logic that provoked such virulent opposition to formalism a century ago.
And it is this aspect of logic that has been so downplayed throughout the twentieth century. Yet even a rudimentary understanding of deductive logic gives lawyers, judges, and law students a valuable tool for determining whether an argument in a legal opinion or brief is valid or misleading. This includes identifying similarities and differences in facts in the previous and in the case to be determined. Once identified, it is then decided whether the case to be determined is similar or different from the previous one in important aspects of the issue to be decided.