• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month
Page
  1. 1
    1
  2. 2
    2
  3. 3
    3
  4. 4
    4
  5. 5
    5
  6. 6
    6
  7. 7
    7
  8. 8
    8
  9. 9
    9
  10. 10
    10
  11. 11
    11
  • Level: GCSE
  • Subject: Law
  • Word count: 2860

The case R.V Machekequonabe, a pagan Indian prisoner.

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

In the case R.V Machekequonabe, a pagan Indian prisoner, Machekequonabe is charged with shooting and killing his foster father. The difficulty of this case revolves around the fact that his particular pagan Indian tribe believed in the existence of evil spirit wendigos which assume human form and pose a threat to their community. On one hand, there are rules against killing other humans, and on the other, Indian common law says that it is acceptable to kill wendigos (which the defendant believed he was doing). This essay will show how this conflict and ruling can be explained completely by Dworkin's theory of law and judicial reasoning. To provide the necessary background information, I will first explain the facts surround the R.V. Machekequonabe case, followed by an explanation of the questions that arise from the facts and how they are used to decide the outcome. In order to show why Dworkin's theory is better at explaining this case, I will also provide a series of other legal theories and show where they are satisfactory and where they fall short. At the end, I am confident that Dworkin's theory, in contrast to the others makes a much better account of judicial reasoning. The facts concerning R.V.Machekequonabe are quite simple and straight forward. The first fact I wish to discuss is the fact that Machekequonabe was a member of a pagan Indian tribe. As a member of a pagan Indian tribe, it gives reasons for why he shot his foster father. Machekequonabe believed that what he was shooting at was a wendigo. For the purpose of this case and this briefing I will quickly explain what a wendigo is commonly believed to be. ...read more.

Middle

Thus this early theory does not reflect this ruling and as a side not, divine theory is not usually accepted as a true theory for judicial reasoning. According to Austin, a legal positivist, only laws that are laid down by superiors to inferiors with the threat of pain are considered laws. Judicial reasoning within this theory is based sole upon the discretion of the superiors. Whatever they decide should be law will be law. Thus in this theory, officials create rather than interpret laws. When applying this case to legal positivism, there does seem to be a connection. The judge states that it is a "matter of law" (210) that the defendant should be found guilty of manslaughter. His choice of words; "matter of law", suggest his enforcement of superior laws, as laid down by the Canadian legal authorities. Legal positivists also reject common law as being legally binding unless supported by the superior. This part of the theory is also expressed in the ruling, as the judge rejects the common law of the pagan Indians as justification for the manslaughter. Legal realism is a theory that was originated as a way to explain how judges make their decisions. In legal rulings, judges, according to legal realists, are creating laws. Simply put, the only laws that exist are those that have been applied in the past, that is there is no true law that is used to determine the ruling of a present case. There exists only speculation from the lawyers as to what possible ruling will be used. While this theory is sound logically, it is not very practical in a real life legal system. ...read more.

Conclusion

It would have been inconsistent with those principles should the judge have recommended the most severe penalty. Principles are designed to enhance to advance society and severe punishment for intentions of protecting one's social circle could have detrimental effects on all society. As would having released the defendant from any responsibility. The main difference between Hart and Dworkin is that Dworkin agrees with the majority of Harts views concerning primary and secondary laws, but disagrees in that Dworkin acknowledges legal conflicts and situations where there are conflicting laws. By adding principles to guide the advancement of society, Dworkin is able to explain why certain rulings are made when two laws seem to be equally right and acceptable. By applying principles, it becomes apparent which law, when upheld would promote the greatest social benefits. Dworkin's theory is the best theory for explaining why the judge ruled in the fashion that he did. It is apparent that he made the right decision as reflected by agreement in the court of appeals. By applying principles to the conflicting laws, the judge is able to make the greatest social advancements by both punishing for actions causing harm and also giving hint that his honest intentions did not go unnoticed and such intentions should be upheld in society. Looking at the case R.V.Machekequonabe, it is a prime example of conflicting rules. It is always difficult to decide which rule should be followed and which should be rejected, especially in cases where cultural upbringing plays such a major role. However, after looking at the facts, and the ruling, Dworkin's theory of law and judicial reasoning provides us with the most satisfactory explanation, and also shows that rulings, when applying social principles are meant to enhance society and bring about social growth. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

    5 star(s)

    This view on relevance was not shared by the dissenters (Lords Griffiths and Browne-Wilkinson). According to Lord Browne-Wilkinson the evidence of the requests was 'relevant because it showed that there were people resorting to the premises for the purpose of obtaining drugs from Chippie'4 (the appellant).

  2. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    What defence is it? (Specific or general) 2. It is a total or partial defence? (Specific are all partial, General tend to be total but can be partial) E.g., Involuntary intoxication - Total to all crimes Voluntary intoxication - Total to some crimes - Theft Voluntary intoxication - Partial to some crimes - Murder General Defences 1.

  1. Should Capital Punishment be enforced

    As human beings, everyone makes mistakes, and this goes likewise for punishing one convicted of a crime.

  2. Worlds Apart: Orientalism, Antifeminism, and Heresy in Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale

    And what this tale-teller most fears--similitude--he exploits to realize this objective. I In his exploration of the homosexual as Other, Jonathan Dollimore establishes that such anxiety concerning sameness or proximity and such appropriation often go hand in hand in western culture.

  1. Does Hart's theory differ to the 'gunman writ large' situation?

    and normative language such as 'you ought' or 'you are obliged to'. Legal rules are then distinguished from social rules by the existence of the "rule of recognition" through which the laws of a particular legal system are identified. The significance of the internal aspect is illustrated vividly by MacCormick2.

  2. Free essay

    Explain how the narrow rule stated in Donoghue v Stevenson has been developed.

    often problematic to prove that the defender was negligent in common law. Basis of the problem was lack of witness who could speak to the design flaws. Lord Wright adopted the rule of evidence called res ipsa loguitur25. In accordance to prior, events along with consistent facts justification are in competence to establish a breach26.

  1. Is Nuclear Power the Answer for the Future?

    Advantages * Solar energy is free - it needs no fuel and produces no waste or pollution so it has no affect on climate change. * In sunny countries, solar power can produce large amounts of energy and can be used where there is no easy way to get electricity to a remote place.

  2. Describe the system of trial by jury within the English legal system.

    The witness could be a police officer who is giving details of the arrest, a doctor giving medical evidence or a forensic investigator reporting the findings of a fingerprint search. Some trials have expert witnesses to give their view on the details of the trial.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work