A second question requires a little more explanation. Did Machekequonabe have believe that what he was shooting was a wendigo? And also on the same lines, was Machekequonabe justified in believing that his target was a wendigo? According to the facts, Machekequonabe did indeed believe he was shooting at a wendigo. He has no intentions to harm a human being and shot only at what he believed to be an evil spirit. The justification of Machekequonabe’s believe requires a little more explanation. First, as a member of a pagan Indian tribe he is exposed to the common belief that wendigos exist, explaining Machekequonabe’s initial belief that there does exist wendigos. His belief that there was a wendigo in the area is also justified by the fact that others in his camp also believed and were in fear of a wendigo in the area, as suggested by the setting out of armed guards. Upon seeing the victim in the distance, Machekequonabe shouted out challenges three times, in an attempt to identify the target, but when his challenges were not answered, Machekequonabe and his partner gave chase and shot what Machekequonabe was justified in believing was a wendigo. As wendigos are visually indistinguishable from humans, the only method of identification would have been calling out and receiving and answer. When the victim did not answer, it suggested to Machekequonabe that the target was not human.
Thirdly, the judge and jury would ask whether or not Machekequonabe has any intention to harm a human being. According the facts, the answer would be no. Machekequonabe believed he was shooting at a wendigo in the attempts to protect himself and those in the camp. There was no intention for harming another person, and Machekequonabe did make attempts to correctly identify his target by shouting at him.
These questions were some of the driving points that lead to the ruling by the judge and eventually the jury.
The judge in this case suggested to the jury to find the defendant guilty of manslaughter, which the jury followed. This portion of the essay will be used to explain why the judge made his recommendation.
In this case, there is no justification for shooting and killing a man, regardless of misidentification. It does not matter that Machekequonabe thought he was shooting a wendigo, the fact of the case is that Machekequonabe is responsible for the death of another human being. Possible justifications of self-defense were ruled out as the victim did not pose any immediate threat to the defendant and was in fact in the distance and fleeing. According to written law, Machekequonabe is responsible for manslaughter and should not be given an acquittal on the fact that his intentions were not to harm a human. Machekequonabe purposefully shot and killed a man under the belief that the man was an evil spirit. This fact leads to manslaughter, which the both the judge and the jury agreed upon.
This second half of the essay will look at the various theories of judicial reasoning and explain how this ruling does or does not reflect that particular theory. After briefly explaining how each fits this case, I will show how Dworkin’s theory of law and judicial reasoning best explains this ruling.
One of the earliest theories of law is the divine law theory. This theory is simply that laws are laid down by a supreme god being to guide the actions of humans. The judicial reasoning is simply whatever the supreme being says is law will be the law. However, this theory is commonly based upon the Judo-Christian law and does not usually take into account the idea of cultural relativity. If this theory were to have been applied to this case, Machekequonabe would have not been guilty, as according to the cultural customs of his pagan Indian tribe, wendigos should be killed and he would have been justified for shooting and killing his foster father if he had legitimate belief that his target was a wendigo. For if divine theory and cultural relativism was applied, whatever the pagan Indian “gods” or beliefs suggested to be right would than be right for that culture from which the defendant existed in. 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. This case in particular, according to legal realists, it is quite possible that the judge could have taken into account the common laws of the pagan Indians and ruled that Machekequonabe is innocent of any wrong doing. It is also equally possible that the judge find Machekequonabe guilty of manslaughter, sentencing for the maximum amount. There also exists no precedence of past rulings and therefore the judges have almost absolute freedom in their decisions as they are not held accountable. It is hard to apply this case to legal realism as it is possible, however unlikely that the judge rejected all previous rulings and any laws and ruled simply out of speculation and situational evidence.
Liberalism, taken together as both classical and modern liberalism can also be used to support this ruling. Classical liberalism would say that the judge was correct in his ruling of manslaughter since Machekequonabe did cause harm to another human. The cause of harm, according to classical liberalism is a cornerstone of the legal system; any action that causes harm to another can be reason for legal action. Classical liberalism, however does not explain why the judge showed hints of leniency towards Machekequonabe for being a pagan Indian and having beliefs about wendigos. Modern liberalism takes into account not only actions but also in-actions causing harm. In Machekequonabe’s case, it would appear that his actions causing death were a priority for the ruling, and the fact that his intentions were to prevent possible harm to others, i.e. if he had not shot a possible wendigo, his in-actions would have caused harm to others. Modern liberals would agree with the ruling, seeing as how there is a conflict of both negative action and positive action.
Another legal theory, originated by Hart concerns the union of primary and secondary rules. In this theory, common laws are acknowledged as being primary rules, but in order for them to be applied as a legal system, there must exist a secondary rule, i.e. the rule of recognition that acknowledges that particular primary or common law to be legally binding. While it may sounds complicated, the theory is actually quite simple. There exists a rule of recognition that most if not all officials agree upon that identifies which of the primary rules will be legally binding and which will not. Also, there exist secondary laws that dictate the methods in which the judicial system should function, that is how and when primary laws will be enforced. In the Machekequonabe case, the primary law that was broken was simple manslaughter. However there also exists a common law of the pagan Indians that justifies and ratifies the killing of the misidentified man. By simply looking at primary laws, there appears to be a conflict, but the rule of recognition agreed upon by the judges picks out which primary law will be followed and which would not. There may or may not be a written law that details why the law against manslaughter should be followed when the law of killing wendigos should not. But irregardless, by having a common agreement within the judicial circle; as shown by the support of the other judges when the case was appealed, the rule of recognition is upheld in this ruling. The area in which this theory falls short is in the sentencing. The judge recommended the defendant to mercy. This suggests that he acknowledges that while Machekequonabe is guilty of manslaughter and should be punished, but he also understands that Mackekequonabe’s intentions were not to harm anybody and that his culture endorses such behavior. It would appear that the judge took into consideration the existence of meta-legal standards in deciding his ruling, which is not explained in Hart’s theory.
It would appear that the above theories explain parts of this case but not the case in its entirety. Also, some portions of the case must be somewhat manipulated and assumptions must be made to accommodate those theories. I will now show how Dworkin’s theory of law and judicial reasoning can explain all aspects of this case and it’s rulings. Also I will contrast between Hart’s views and Dworkin’s views as they are quite similar and there maybe some confusion as to why one is better than the other.
Dworkin more or less expands upon the ideas of Hart, thus their similarities. But Dworkin makes deliberate additions to Hart’s theory, making it more complete in a sense. By adding the idea of principles, Dworkin is able to explain why judges sometimes act more lenient and sometime more harsh. Also, it is a method of explaining why one law or rule is given greater weight than another. In this case, the conflicting laws are that Machekequonabe killed a human which is against Canadian law and the common law of the pagan Indians which says that defending one’s social group against a wendigo is proper and acceptable. The judge in this case must decide which of these two laws should be given more weight and how much more should it be given. Dworkin suggests that there must exist a common principle that will decide which is of more importance. In this case, a possible principle would be human life should be preserved. Principles are not rules in and of themselves, but they exist as reasons for taking action or refraining from action. By applying this principle to the conflicting rules, it can be made clear that the law against killing more properly serves this principle than the common law of killing wendigos. Since manslaughter explicitly rejects the principle of preservation of life, it’s application is more sound than if we allowed such killing as a by-product of killing imaginary creatures.
The application of principles also explains why the judge showed leniency in his sentencing. The preservation of cultural heritage is important as well as the intentions of protecting one’s social circle. 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.
