Jurisprudence literature

NoQuarter

Hi all,

Exams just around the corner and I was planning on trying to stick in some literature or films into my jurisprudence essays to look all fancy and stuff

Does anyone know any books or films that relate to:

• Hart (or positivism in general)
• Austin (or positivism in general)
• Dworkin (or natural law in general)
• Post-modernisn

Any ideas greatly appreciated,

Cheers!

Tom Young

Dworkin is my favourite on a number of levels. Hurcules for example. Judges 'Do do' etc.

To Kill a Mocking Bird - Film;
Shawshank Redemption - Book/Film - Positivism;
Cruel House - Book;
Book of Evidence - Book;
Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky - Book; and
Ronald Coase - Article: The Problem of Social Cost
Published in the Journal of Law and Economics in 1960, while Coase was a member of the Economics department at the University of Virginia, "The Problem of Social Cost" provided the key insight that it is unclear where the blame for externalities lies. The example he gave was of a rancher whose cattle stray onto the cropland of his neighbour. If the rancher is made to restrict his cattle, he is harmed just as the farmer is if the cattle remain unrestrained.

What else?

If your examiner is who I think it is, A v Governor of Arbor Hill Prision, Supreme Court Decisions, match the judges views to the trends. Likewise with Sinnott judgment, see only for Positivism Hardiman and Murray JJ. the for Natural Law Keane CJ. and Denham J. CC v Ireland have some other elements.

In relation to Natural Law you know the deal, if you don't look at Acquinas and the stoics.

In relation to distributive jusitice, Rawls and Nozick.

If you have any fluffy logic or law and economics do those questions.

Feminism is also a favourite.

Have fun, but come away having an opinion of the subject area. Work hard, work smart, push the boundaries in your answers, but do so with evidence etc.

Tom

NoQuarter

Tom Young wrote: »

Dworkin is my favourite on a number of levels. Hurcules for example. Judges 'Do do' etc.

To Kill a Mocking Bird - Film;
Shawshank Redemption - Book/Film - Positivism;
Cruel House - Book;
Book of Evidence - Book;
Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky - Book; and
Ronald Coase - Article: The Problem of Social Cost
Published in the Journal of Law and Economics in 1960, while Coase was a member of the Economics department at the University of Virginia, "The Problem of Social Cost" provided the key insight that it is unclear where the blame for externalities lies. The example he gave was of a rancher whose cattle stray onto the cropland of his neighbour. If the rancher is made to restrict his cattle, he is harmed just as the farmer is if the cattle remain unrestrained.

What else?

If your examiner is who I think it is, A v Governor of Arbor Hill Prision, Supreme Court Decisions, match the judges views to the trends. Likewise with Sinnott judgment, see only for Positivism Hardiman and Murray JJ. the for Natural Law Keane CJ. and Denham J. CC v Ireland have some other elements.

In relation to Natural Law you know the deal, if you don't look at Acquinas and the stoics.

In relation to distributive jusitice, Rawls and Nozick.

If you have any fluffy logic or law and economics do those questions.

Feminism is also a favourite.

Have fun, but come away having an opinion of the subject area. Work hard, work smart, push the boundaries in your answers, but do so with evidence etc.

Tom

Thanks Tom,

Your post is both helpful yet worrying! It didnt make as much sense to me as it should have at this stage! Perhaps the reality check i needed

You probably have the right lecturer in mind (D.L?).

With regard to the shawshank redemption, a movie i've seen a number of times, where does positivism fit into it? I cant bridge the connections in my head...

stephenhealy1

I would refrain from citing Shawshank, great film though!

Het-Field

king-stew wrote: »

Thanks Tom,

Your post is both helpful yet worrying! It didnt make as much sense to me as it should have at this stage! Perhaps the reality check i needed

You probably have the right lecturer in mind (D.L?).

With regard to the shawshank redemption, a movie i've seen a number of times, where does positivism fit into it? I cant bridge the connections in my head...

I dont think Shawshank is endorsed by said lecturer as part of jurisprudential literature and film.

I was blown away by "Taxi Driver". It was chock full of jurisprudential significance. It endorses a form of positivism (most noticably articulated by the early words of Di Niro in the film), it rejects McKinnon's "ethic of care" which she deems only attributable to women (Feminism) as he almost lays down his life for Jodie Foster in his attempt to remove her from her life of prostitution. Di Niro's activities and his use of monetary resources is a form of rejection of the law and economics movement. He is generous enough with his money, and is particularly nice to Foster, and gives her money.

It finishes with a lesson in the (albeit bastardised) Law and Morality" stuff with the average public view towards paedophiles, pimps and drug dealers being endorsed as Di Niro gets lauded for butchering several people in his attempt to save Jodie Foster


There is lots more, but its such a long time since I wrote the stuff.

Its well worth watching, and the aformentioned initialled lecturer wholly endorsed it in 2008-2009.

NoQuarter

Thank you for the helpful insight het-field (metallica?:)).

Unfortunately Ive decided not to do feminism or law and economics or law and morality for that matter...:o

But i will have to have a look out for Di Niro's early words!

FreudianSlippers

For the lecturer you have you can't go wrong with Law's Empire by Dworkin. I don't know what he told you regarding feminism, but from what I remember he always downplayed it a bit in class but it featured on the exam (I think! Either the exam or an assignment option)

NoQuarter

OisinT wrote: »

For the lecturer you have you can't go wrong with Law's Empire by Dworkin. I don't know what he told you regarding feminism, but from what I remember he always downplayed it a bit in class but it featured on the exam (I think! Either the exam or an assignment option)

Yeah Laws Empire is essential i would have said, but im really looking for extra material to make the paper stand out!

Said lecturer told us if the paper is hard there will be a question on femenism and if the paper is easy there wont be! Dont know what to take from that!:D

FreudianSlippers

king-stew wrote: »

Yeah Laws Empire is essential i would have said, but im really looking for extra material to make the paper stand out!

Said lecturer told us if the paper is hard there will be a question on femenism and if the paper is easy there wont be! Dont know what to take from that!:D

I believe that if the paper is "easy" there is usually a question that is something along the lines of "write about a section of jurisprudence that didn't come up on the exam"

So if you study feminism and it isn't on the paper, and that question comes up then you may be able to write about it anyway.

Just food for thought.