Need Help with an exam Question

Hogzy

Before i state the question guys its about jurisprudence... I can see half ye walking out the door already:D

Anyways i have a guaranteed question coming up in my exam and its simply:

"Why Study Jurisprudence?" or "What effect has jurisprudence had on you as a student?" etc etc

I need some answers from people who have answered this question in the past! Im totally stuck!

Thanks guys!

Tom Young

Messy question really. The reason is as it depends on your own learning from your study of Jurisprudence.

Personally, I liked Jurisprudence and particularly the Law and Economics school.

You'd have to have an in depth knowledge of certain areas and have read a few different schools and arguments in order to competently answer this question.

E.g., Rawls and Finns in Natural Law. Ronald Dworkin in relation to modern Jurisprudence and the shifts in his thinking. Marx etc.

These questions are best avoided unless you're very clear on them. The beauty of them is though that if you are clear you can pre-plan an essay for an exam and score well.

Tom

Hogzy

Yup id love to avoid this question but unfortunatly its the only compulsory one on the paper. we were told about it because we NEVER have compulsory questions and the lecturer just decided to give us a heads up. thats fine anyways i can come up with my own thoughts on jurisprudence by talking about the topics.

Cheers Tom!

Tom Young

Best bet might be to find an area you like/love and apply it to Irish or EU law.

Take A v Governor of Arbor Hill Prison and apply Dworkin and his Judges DO DOO theory (sic) or Hurculeas the superior court justice; or Sinnott as an example of Natural Law when applying the dissenting judgments of Keane CJ and Denham J. Or Positivism when looking at Murray J (as he was then) and Hardiman J. e.g., Sinnott was over 18 in law and therefore not an adult. Lex Injusta non est lex yadda.

Lots there. Feminism and that wacky legal movement or indeed Stoics etc.

Just some thoughts. Application of concepts and appreciation of Jurisprudence is sometimes more important than the authors.

Tom

hullaballoo

My opinion on it is that they're looking for you to say what, if any, benefits there are to studying jurisprudence. I would give an answer based on the premise that it gives a greater depth of understanding why the law is the way it is. I was particularly enamoured with the concept of the social contract - the idea that the individual and the State are mutually bound to keep certain order in society.

If you accompany your study of the schools of jurisprudence with a little bit of background research into legal anthropology (see Lyall, Osborough and Fergus Kelly), you'll be able to advance pretty convincing arguments that the study of jurisprudence is necessary in order to fully understand the legal framework in which we live as a society today. There's an obvious practical upshot that if you understand why the laws exist and where they come from (i.e., on what basis they are formed), you can put forward some interesting arguments in favour of certain interpretations of modern laws or judgments.

A good example of where the positivist school failed to come up with good law is State (Ryan) v. Lennon [1935] IR 170 (available on justis.com).

I hope this helps.