Legal Positivism and its Critics

Excerpts from the Paper

Legal Positivism and its Critics
Legal positivists support the position that states that observance to a just legal process is significantly more important than the actual specifics of the law. As such, positivists make a solid distinction between the practice of law and their accompanying emotions, values, and politics. In effect, they consider Parliament as the proper place for debate, where laws are made. In contrast, the responsibility of an attorney is significantly more technical where it is their principal task to carry out those laws made by the legislature, and not to judge them. Ultimately, from the perspective of legal positivists, if one’s moral views were to have a bearing, it would result in an inconsistent and anarchic...

.....ver consider the damages of the plaintiff and how her client had caused them, but would concentrate solely on applying the rules of legal procedure correctly. In contrast, a realist attorney would likely persuade her client to settle with the defendant. She would disclose the merits of their case to them but nevertheless advise her client that there is the chance they would lose. More importantly, she would discuss with them the clear causal relationship between their defective product and the defendant’s horrible injuries, and that the ethical avenue would be to offer a settlement amount to compensate him. She would remind them that even a corporation has humane responsibilities and that ultimately, a settlement would be the best recourse.