Mccormick Consequences Socialist Legal Reasoning Model Research

The model of legal reasoning of Consequentialist founded by Neil MacCormick whose subject is the reasoning process that public decision making in the court bases on, aims to interpret and prove a standard that distinguish a legal argument is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, thus to provide to a followed pattern for the judge how to demonstrate the legitimacy of the conclusion of a judgment in Hard Cases.In Easy Cases, the judgment conclusion directly comes from the established rules of law, in other words the proof for reasons of the sentence sufficiently completes by the deductive reasoning. However, in Hard Cases, the problem of Interpretation of the legal rules, the problem of Relevancy of lacking the related rules of law to regulate it and the issues of Classification of facts cause the limitations of deductive reasoning to emerge. The limitations of deductive reasoning are either inherently presuming those foundations that decisions based on-the existing legal rules-are legitimate and valid, or being lack of the valid premise. So the secondary proof is highly needed. Secondary proof means demonstrating the reasons that the choice based on, that is to say demonstrating how to make choice between the conflicting judgments which are both possible.The secondary proof includes two elements:one is the Consequentialist Argument, the other one is the argument of Consistency and Coherence. The Consequentialist Argument concerns on the consequences the different decisions bring, the argument of Consistency stresses that there is no conflict between the rules the judge establishes and the existing effective legal rules, the argument of Coherence focuses that the specification the rules of adjudication establishing is whether coordinating with the established legal system or not, claims that the judgment conclusion should explicitly reflect a sort of value and orientation of policy in the legal system. The argument of Consistency and Coherence constitutes the limitation and constraint to the Consequentialist Argument, aims to inspect the rules of adjudication that the judge establishes. In Hard Cases, the rules of adjudication should both get the endorsement of the principle, and be desirable in consequence, moreover can’t conflict with the existing legal rules. The three ones intertwined complete jointly the demonstration of the conclusion of judgment.A certain theory of legal reasoning can’t be in separated from a certain legal theory. MacCormick adheres to the judicial philosophy of Pragmatism, and stresses that the judge should stick to formal justice, and attempt to exceed the legal Positivism and the theory of Natural law, integrates the practical philosophy to develop the legal Positivism. Law, being as the form of the social system, doesn’t exist based on the moral principles, but receives the criticism of the moral principles. The judge reaches the conclusion of judgment according to consider compositely the moral, value, principle and policy, at the same time he must find the foundation from the legal institution. Though the model of legal reasoning of consequentialist may provide a new road to be followed for the judge to solve the demonstration of legal decision in Hard Cases, and effectively achieve the function of judicature’s molding the society, there are some limitations on itself needing to be overcame, such as much too trusting in the judge and uncertainty of the sentence’s basis.