Predictability and Certainty, Malleability and Uncertainty in the Law – A Critique of Robertson’s Argument Michael Robertson's article, Telling the Law's Two Stories, suggests that law may quite legitimately have within it both predictability and certainty - and malleability and uncertainty. Robertson argues, more exactly, that the malleability and inconsistency which the unorthodoxy story emphasizes turn out to facilitate the achievement of important law jobs. This does not, however, mean that the competing orthodoxy story, which stresses law's rationality and predictability, should be rejected. Predictability and certainty are simply too crucial in the performance of the other law jobs (Robertson, 2007, p. 429). With this general...The end:
.....ples regardless of prevailing norms and values. Otherwise, a pluralistic society will inevitably devolve into chaos. Thus, while Robertson's basic position is that both the orthodox and unorthodox stories must be claimed by the law, he fails to recognize and admit that unorthodoxy should not hold equal status with orthodoxy because the latter school of thought establishes principled boundaries for society. Malleability and uncertainty should never be on equal footing with predictability and certainty. REFERENCES Class Notes (n.d.) CQ Researcher. (2009). Issues for debate in sociology: selections from CQ researcher. Pine Forge Press. Robertson, M. (2007). Telling the Law's Two Stories. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence. Vol XX No. 2.