JURISPRUDENCE,
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY
(Extract from:Avtar
Singh and Harpreet Kaur, Introduction to
Jurisprudence, pp5-9)
Jurisprudence is closely inter-related with other social
sciences since all of them are concerned with human behaviour in society. Pound
who propounded the theory of law as a 'social engineering', pointed out that
jurisprudence is closely inter-related with ethics, economics, politics and sociology
which though distinct enough as the core, are shades into each other. All the
social sciences must co-ordinate with jurisprudence to make it a functional
branch of knowledge. 3 Similarly, Paton has observed that modern jurisprudence
trenches on the fields of social sciences and of philosophy; it digs into the
historical past and attempts to create the symmetry of a garden out of the
luxuriant chaos of conflicting legal systems.
There is a separate branch of sociological jurisprudence
which is based on sociological theories, and is essentially concerned with the
influence of law on the society at large, particularly social welfare. The
sociological approach to the legal problems is different from the approach of
the lawyer. Sociology has helped jurisprudence in its approach to the problems
of prison reforms and has suggested ways and means of preventing social wrongs.
It has given new orientation to the
science of the jurisprudence.
Sociology and
Jurisprudence
The relationship between sociology and jurisprudence is thus
stated in Sethna:
Sociology is the science of society-the study of man in
society-and as such it includes so many subjects and the human sciences in its
scope. It traces human institutions, the
ways of social living, social standards, race, blood, environment of men, the
religious influences, ideals and beliefs pervading the life of men, the
different cultures, and their effect on society, through its branch, namely,
anthropology through which we have learnt much relating to the science of law,
that is, Jurisprudence, especially Historical Jurisprudence. Sociology studies
the relations of men, from the pre-historic age and later times down to the
present age. It views the past, tells of the
experience and lessons of the past, talks of and surveys the present and seeks
to provide for a beautiful future. Indeed all that concerns human welfare is
included in the scope-directly or indirectly-of this all-embracing science-this
science of human sciences. Jurisprudence, especially sociological Jurisprudence,
can best be understood in the light of sociological principles. We must examine
the effect of laws on society and try to improve those laws. So also is
historical jurisprudence a sister to sociology. The historical jurist derives
his knowledge relating to legal institutions and their origin from sociological
and historical sources also. Anthropology tells him much about law and religion
; and a study of the sociology of the law acquaints him with the origin of law
and legal institutions and their development.
Jurisprudence and
Ethics
Ethics is the science of human conduct. It lays down the ideals of human behaviour. Ethics gives us
public opinion as to good or proper human conduct which varies considerably
from place to place and from time to time, and from people to people. What may
be a rule of good morality at one time may not be at another time. As Dr Sethna
has said, 'It changes in the furnace of social evolution, social culture and
social development. What may be a rule of good morality at one time may be a
bad moral today'.
Jurisprudence is concerned with positive morality since law
is considered as an instrument to regulate human conduct in society. Positive
morality is dependent not only upon the good actions of men but it requires a
strong coercive influence for the maintenance of a public conscience. There is
a separate branch of jurisprudence called the ethical jurisprudence which seeks
to lay down the standards of ideal for human conduct in terms of law for the
maintenance of public conscience.
Dr Sethna defining the relationship between ethics and
jurisprudence has said, 'In the mirror of a community's laws are reflected in
its culture,its ideology and its miranda. On the high level of its laws is perceived the glory of a country's civilization
-the depth of its positive ethics. Hence,the relationship between ethics and
jurisprudence.
Dr Sethna continues to observe as follows:
Ethics depends on law for
enforcement of some of its rules through the instrumentality of the law courts,
the police and decrees of courts and punishments.So also good legislation must be
based on ethical or nomological principles. Just as there are values in ethics,
there should be a complete recognition of values in law also.
Ethics examines human conduct
and lays down rules of duty and ideal conduct,dealing with the values of life. On
high values, human living is to be shaped. Laws are meant for regulating human
conduct and for subjecting the individual ego to the social ego. So the jurist
should have good knowledge of ethical values and should base the law of the land
on such ethical principles as may be thought fit tobe incorporated in law.
Jurisprudence and
Psychology
Psychology is the science of mind and behaviour and as such,
is very closely related to the science of law, that is, jurisprudence. In the
study of criminal jurisprudence, there is a very great scope for the study of
psychological principles in order to understand the criminal mind behind the
crime.
The psychology of the offender is one of the crucial factors
in deciding the nature of punishment to be given to the convict. The modern
reformative techniques of punishment are devised for the treatment of the
offenders according to their psychological traits.
Psychology can help the law-maker considerably in the
approach to the problems, of not only making the law, but also of executing
it.Many legal concepts such as negligence, motive, mens rea, intention which
pertain to the faculty of mind, they form a part of study of psychology as also
thee jurisprudence.
Jurisprudence and
History
There is a close inter-connection between history and
jurisprudence because without probing in to the history we can not appreciate
the present law and legal system. History is the study of past events in their
proper prospective. Therefore, for the study of different branches of law their
study in the historical prospective is required without which the study would
be incomplete.
Jurisprudence and
Economics
Economics is a science of money and wealth whereas
jurisprudence is a science of law but both are intimately co-related. There are
many laws which tend to regulate economic activities of men because economic
factors ie, money or production and distribution of wealth are
responsible factors for the incidence of crimes in society. For example,
Negotiable Instruments,Consumer Protection, Law relating to Banking, Companies, Bonus,Insurance, Payment of Wages etc.
These tend to regulate economic activities of men and for this regulation of
wealth, Law of Poverty developed as a separate branch of law for the welfare of
the poor people so that they canal so be brought into the mainstream of
development and progress. So we can say that the ultimate aim of both the
economics and jurisprudence is to improve the standard of life of the people for
the welfare of the community as a whole.
The close relationship with economics is thus explained in
Sethna:
Jurisprudence certainly has a
close relation to economics, especially the economics of welfare.The aim
of economics is to bring in prosperity; the aim of legislation is to produce good
laws for the welfare and mutual relations of men in civilised society;and
jurisprudence is the science and philosophy dealing with the basic principles
of law and the ideal for betterment and greater good. Jurisprudence teaches
the legislators how to make good laws for promoting the economic and social
welfare of the people. To-day, we have a good deal of legislation relating to the
economics of welfare. In the production of wealth, we must look to the welfare
of the worker as well. Factory laws,laws relating to workmen's compensation,
laws relating to payment of wages, the limitation of hours of work, and laws relating
to labour insurance and for the procuring of an equitable distribution of wealth,
have been passed and are being passed. So also we have Agricultural Debtor's
Relief Acts, Zamindari Abolition Acts, and laws relating to prevention
of fragmentation of agricultural holdings. So Jurisprudence is interlinked with the economics
of welfare. Both deal with welfare.
Jurisprudence and
Politics
Political science deals with the principles governing the
organisations of government. State as a political organisation makes law for
good governance of people and politicians are the law-making organ of the
Government.Therefore, relationship of jurisprudence with politics is
well-founded. As remarked by Friedmann jurisprudence is linked at one end
with philosophy and at the other end with political theory.
The following statement of the relationship between politics
and jurisprudence is worthy of being noted
Politics is the science of government.
Good government depends upon good laws; so here we have the tracing of the close
relation between politics and jurisprudence. As Edmund Burke has well
expressed, a good government is not a partnership in a tea-house or a coffee-house,
but a partnership in every art, a sharing in all science, a participation in all
virtue. Jurisprudence,certainly, deals with virtues and values. Just as in
ethics we have values, soalso, in Jurisprudence we have values. Ethical and
Sociological Jurisprudenceplays prominent part.
Laws .should not be regarded
merely as the machinery of government or the enforcement of a particular or
general policy; laws should be based on the social,economic and political needs
of the people, for law should act in the service of man,and not be a machinery for
enslaving. Just as a good government is possible only with good laws, so also
good laws are perceivable only in a good State with a good government and an
ideal legislature. Hence the intimate relation between politics and
jurisprudence.
RELATIONS OF JURISPRUDENCE WITH
OTHER SOCIAL SCIENCES
By: LellalaVishwanadham
(VSRD Technical & Non-Technical
Journal Vol. 3 (5), 2012
http://www.vsrdjournals.com/vsrd/Issue/2012_05_May/Web/2_Lellala_Vishwanadham_655_Research_Communication_VSRD_May_2012)
Introduction
Different
branches of knowledge are so interrelated that none of them can be studied in
isolation.All social sciences stand in close connection with one
another.All of them study the actions of human beings living in society, though
from different angles and with different ends.
In
the view of the Paton, “Modern Jurisprudence trenches on the fields of social
sciences and of philosophy; it digs into the historical past and attempts to
create the symmetry of a garden out of the luxuriant chaos of conflicting legal
systems”.
Justice
Mc Cardie emphasises the indispensability of the study of other social sciences
in these words: “There never was a time when the barrister had greater need of
a wide culture and of a full acquaintance with history with economics and
sociological science.
Roscoe
pound of the Harvard Law School, explained, “Jurisprudence, ethics, economics,
polities and sociology are distinct enough at the core, but shade out into each
other.When we look at the core or chiefly at the core, the analytical
distinctions are sound enough.But we shall not understand even that core, and
much less debatable ground beyond, unless we are prepared to make continual deep
incursions from each into each of others.All the social sciences must be
co-workers and emphatically all must be co-workers with
Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence
and Sociology
According
to Salmond, Jurisprudence is the knowledge of law and in that Sense all law
books can be considered as books on jurisprudence.Among the phenomena studied
by sociologists is law also and that makes sociology intimately connected with
Jurisprudence.
Sociological
Jurisprudence based on Sociological theories and is essentially concerned with
the influence of law on society at large, particularly social welfare.The
sociological approach to legal problems is essentially different from that of a
lawyer.
In
the case of crime in society, its causes are to a very great extent
sociological and to understand their pros and cons, one must have knowledge of
society.
Sociology
has helped jurisprudence in its approach to the problem of prison reformed and
has suggested ways and means of preventing social wrongs. Preciously, judges
and legislators came to their conclusions regarding the effect of punishment by
depending upon popular opinion and personal impressions, but now they have at
their disposal precise data through the efforts of criminologists.
Behind
all legal aspects, there is something social.The causes of crimes are partly
sociological and an understanding of sociology helps the legislators in their
task of prison reform and prevention of crimes.Topics like motives, aims and
theories of punishment and the efficacy of the various types of punishmentsare
considerably helped by sociology.The birth and growth of sociology has given a
new orientation to the study of Jurisprudence.
There
is a distinction between sociological Jurisprudence and sociology of law.The
latter differs mainly from the former inthat it attempts to create a science of
social life as a whole and to cover a great part of general sociology and
political science”. In the sociology of law, the emphasis is on society but in
sociological Jurisprudence emphasis is on the relation between law
and society.
The
sociology of law is a branch of sociology dealing with the law and legal
institutions in the light of sociological principles, aims and methods.
Jurisprudence
and Psychology
Psychology
has been defined as the science of mind and behavior.It is recognized that no
human science can be discussed properly without a thorough knowledge of the
human mind and hence it’s close connection with jurisprudence.In the study of
criminal jurisprudence,there is a great scope for the study of psychological
principles in order to understand the criminal mind behind the crime.Both
psychology and jurisprudence are interested in solving such questions as the
motive for crime, a criminal personality, whether a criminal gets pleasure in
committing a crime why there are more crimes in one society than in another and
what punishment should be given in any particular case.In criminology,
psychology plays an important part.It is the duty of a lawyer to understand the
criminal and the working of a criminal mind.
It
is the duty of a law-giver to understand man and not to pass judgments and
say what man ought to do or ought not to do.Psychology can help the law-maker
considerably in the approach to the problem of not only making the law but also
of executing it.
Jurisprudence
is concerned with man’s external conduct and not his thoughts and mental
processes, but penology has benefited from the knowledge made available by
psychological researchers.
There
is a school of jurists which holds the view that the sanction behind all laws
is a psychological one.Study of negligence, intention, motive and other cognate
mental conditions forms part of both Jurisprudence and Psychology.
Jurisprudence
and Ethics
Ethics
has been defined as the science of human conduct.It deals how man behaves and
what should be the ideal human behaviour.There is the ideal moral code and the
positive moral code.The former belongs to the province of natural law, while
the latter deals with the rules of positive or actual conduct; Ethics is
concerned with good or proper human conduct in the light of public opinion.Public
opinion varies from the place to place, from time to time and from people to
people.
Jurisprudence
is related to positive morality in so far as law is considered as the
instrument through which positive ethics ties to assert itself.Positive morality
is not dependent upon the good actions of a good man only.It requires a strong
coercive influence for maintaining public conscience.
The
branches of ethical jurisprudence which tries to examine the existing ethical
opinions and standards of conduct in terms of law and makes suggestions for
necessary changes so that it can be properly depict the public conscience.
There
are many ethical rules of conduct which are not considered as crimes.The law
ignores trifles.It may be immoral to tell a lie but it is not a crime.Many acts
are unethical but all unethical acts are not necessarily criminal.One has to
consider the problem of laws which are considered undesirable by society.All
that is prohibited by law is not necessarily immoral.For enforcing certain
ethical conduct, ethics depends upon law through the
instrumentality of the police, law courts, judges and the system of courts and
punishment.Legislation must be based on ethical principles.It must not be
divorced from human values.No Law can be good if it is not based on sound
ethical principles.
Ethics
lays down the rules for human conduct based upon higher and nobler values of
life.Laws are meant for regulating human conduct in the present and
subordinating the requirements of the individual to that of society at large. A
jurist must be adept at the science of ethics because he cannot critics a law
unless he examines that the through the instrumentality of ethics
Jurisprudence
and Economics
Economics
studies man’s efforts in satisfying his wants and producing and distributing
wealth.Economics is the science of wealth and Jurisprudence is the science of
law.There is a close relationship between the two. Very often, economic factors
are responsible for crimes.Economic problems arise from day to day and it is
the duty of the law-giver to tackle those problems.The aim of the economist is
to improve the standard of life of the people and also to develop their
personality.Jurisprudence teaches legislators how to make laws which will
promote social and economic welfare. Both jurisprudence and economics aim at the
betterment of the lives of the people.There are laws relating to workmen’s
compensation, factory legislation, laws relating to labour, insurance,
maternity welfare, bonus, leave facilities and other concessions given to
workmen.There are laws for the benefits of the agriculturists such as the
Zamindari Abolition Acts, Agricultural Debtors Relief Acts, Acts preventing the
fragmentation and sub-division of agricultural holdings and regulation of
agricultural labour. Both Jurisprudence and economics help each other in
furthering the welfare of society.
The
intimate relation between economics and Jurisprudence was first emphasized by
Kar lMarx
Jurisprudence
and History
History
studies past events in their different perspectives.The relation between
Jurisprudence and history is so close that there is a separate historical
school of Jurisprudence.History furnishes the back ground in which a correct
idea of Jurisprudence can be realized.
Jurisprudence
and Politics
Friedman
rightly points out that Jurisprudence is linked at one end with philosophy and
at the otherend with political theory.Politics deals with the principles
governing governmental organization.In a politically organized society, there
exist regulations which may be called laws and they lay down authoritatively
what men may do and what they may not do.
By
Zulfiqar Ali Chandio
Jurisprudence is closely inter-related
with other social sciences since all of them are concerned with human behavior
in society. Pointing out the relationship between jurisprudence and other
social sciences, G.M Paton observed that, modern jurisprudence trenches on the
fields of social science and of philosophy; it digs into the historical past
and attempts to create the symmetry of a garden out of the luxuriant chaos of
conflicting legal systems. Julius Stone explained the relation between them as,
“Jurisprudence is the lawyer's extraversion."Roscoe Pound who propounded
the theory of law as a "social engineering" also said that
jurisprudence is closely interrelated with other social sciences which though
distinct enough as the core, are shade into each other. In simple words we can
say that different branches of knowledge are so inter-related that none of them
can be studied in isolation. All social sciences stand in close connection with
one another. All of them study the actions of human beings living in society,
through from different angles and with different ends.
Jurisprudence
and Sociology
The attitude of sociologists towards law is
different from that of a lawyer who, in his professional capacity, is concerned
with the rules which have to be obeyed by the people. He is not interested in
knowing how and to what extent those rules actually govern the behavior of the
ordinary citizens. There is separate branch of sociological jurisprudence based
on sociological theories and is essentially concerned with the influence of law
on society at large, particularly social welfare. In the case of crime in
society, its causes are to a very great extent sociological and to understand
their pros and cons, one must have knowledge of society. Sociology helped
jurisprudence in its approach to the problem of prison reforms and suggested
ways and means of preventing social wrongs. Behind all legal aspects, there is
something social. The causes of crimes are partly sociological and an
understanding of sociology helps the legislators in their task of prison reform
and prevention of crime. The birth and growth of sociology has given a new
orientation to the study of jurisprudence.
A study of jurisprudence
is not considered an essential component of the education and training programs of large numbers of lawyers. The subject is considered
pretentious.
Some jurists concentrate on highly abstract
theorising, to the exclusion of the severely practical concerns of the law.
This may have contributed to suspicion of the subject and a rejection of its
pretensions.
Much of the true value of jurisprudence resides
elsewhere than in the day-to-day practical applications of the law.
· Its study provides a discipline of thought which seeks not to
ignore the realities of legal practice, but rather to give added dimension to
an understanding of those realities.
·
It offers an overall view of the law, a unified and systematic
picture, in which the nature of legal institutions and theories becomes more
comprehensible.
·
Austin viewed jurisprudence as providing a ‘map’ of the law which
presents it as ‘a system or organic whole’.
Some legal scholars and students have found a
major attraction of jurisprudence to be its intrinsic interest, which emerges
from the importance of the perennial questions with which it deals. ‘What are
human rights?’, ‘Are there any absolute values in the law?’, ‘What is justice?’
These problems exemplify matters which have been raised over the centuries by
philosophers and jurists. Not only the content of legislation and the
administration of legal institutions, but the basis of society itself, have
been affected by attempts to answer questions of this nature. They are of
abiding human interest.
The intellectual discipline required for a study
of this area of thought must be of a high order. Intensive, systematic
analysis, the ability to exercise one’s critical faculties and to engage in a
continuous questioning of one’s own basic assumptions – all can be heightened
by a study of jurisprudence. The intellectual skills required to see into the
essence of current arguments which turn, for example, on ‘the right to
silence’, ‘the value of the jury’, ‘the presumption of innocence’, can be
sharpened by a consideration of legal theorising.
The study of jurisprudence should enlarge one’s
perception of the patterns of fact and thought from which today’s legal
structures have emerged. Specifically, awareness of the evolution of legal
thought provides a key to an understanding of change as a basic
phenomenon of the law. It is the continuous shifting of views and the
transformation of social institutions which tend to be reflected in
jurisprudence – and which give rise to the deep conflicts which trouble many
observers, such as Arnold. The ability to perceive a process of change beneath
the apparently static processes of the law can be intensified by
jurisprudential analysis. It is of interest to note the recognition of change
which emerged in the decision of the House of Lords in Page v Smith(1995) and in which could be discerned a
modification of views concerning nervous shock and tort – an area in which
there has been much jurisprudential speculation and debate. The War Crimes Act
1991 was preceded by wide-ranging debates which turned on important aspects of
legal theory, involving changing social attitudes towards crime, punishment,
and retribution. A shift of emphasis in the role of foreseeability and intent
in assault, which has formed the basis of much recent jurisprudential debate,
was evident in the decision of the House of Lords in R v Savage (1991).
Perception of the law as an aspect of a changing social environment and
attitudes characterises much contemporary juristic thinking, particularly
evident in cases involving ‘the right to life’: see, for example, the decision
of the Court of Appeal in ReA (Children) (2000), in which the court was
asked to pronounce on the lawfulness of the surgical separation of conjoined
twins.
Additionally, awareness
of change and its reflection in legal theory may enable jurists to note, and
perhaps warn against, the invisible, unacknowledged, yet extremely potent
influence of ‘defunct scribblers’ who continue to affect the thoughts and the
activities of those ‘practical persons’ who have ‘no time for theorising’.
Jurists and philosophers have pointed out the significance of the paradox that
those who affect to reject theory are, effectively, embracing it. The
statement, ‘I don’t need any legal theory to tell me that violence can be met
effectively only by a law which sanctions counter-violence’, is, in fact, the
expression of a basic, complex theory. The belief, ‘You haven’t to be a
theoretician to know that the law has no place in family relationships’ implies
acceptance, consciously or unconsciously, of a profound analysis of functions
of law. A study of the growth and social context of legal theory makes clear
the relationship of theory and practice, the one modifying the other.
The very wide range of
contemporary jurisprudence has enlarged its relevance and interest. The days
when legal theory was equated with an implied rejection of the significance of
‘problems of the real world’ have gone. The figure of the jurist as a recluse,
uninterested in law in action, is now seen as mere caricature. Modern jurists
include many who demonstrate a profound concern for social justice and communal harmony – this is obvious in the writings of
contemporary American legal theoreticians. Dworkin, for example, argues
cogently that the real purpose of the law can be found in the aim of ensuring
that a community acts towards all its members in a ‘coherent, principled
fashion’. Rawls proposes acceptance of a public conception of justice which
must constitute the fundamental character of any well-ordered human association.
Nozick lays stress on the importance of using principles of justice so as to
clarify problems inherent in the holding and transferring of society’s
resources. It may be that a pattern of concern has now emerged in which the
responsibilities of the law, its theoreticians and practitioners, are clearly
emphasised, a pattern which is in clear contrast to the implications of
Arnold’s perception of a ‘chaotic’ jurisprudence.
Where jurists survey the established socio-legal
order, their jurisprudential analysis is often of significance for students of
the law who are a part of that order, and whose perceptions of law as an
instrument of social policy are thereby challenged. One type of perception
relates generally to the relationship between jurisprudence and other
disciplines. Because modern jurisprudence ranges very widely over society and
because it builds some of its theoretical framework on material derived from
contact with other disciplines, students are brought to an awareness of the
interdependence of all social studies and to acceptance of the complex
nature of their own place within the social framework – a positive step which
belies the negative nature of Arnold’s comment.
The role of the lawyer
within our society – and it is that to which many law students aspire – is the
subject of continuing analysis by jurists, with the result that the very
rationale of the legal profession in the Western world has become a matter of
debate and can no longer be taken for granted – a valuable event in itself.
Thus, Luban has investigated facets of the role of the lawyer as ‘partisan
advocate’ – a creature of the common law adversarial system. He believes that
the standard view of the role of the lawyer, based on principles of
‘partnership and non-accountability’ in some respects, may no longer be
acceptable to society save in a highly qualified form. He calls for a more
intensive debate on professional ethics as they relate to the individual
conscience and socio-legal institutions and suggests that the lawyer acts as a
‘broker of the conspiracy at the Centre of the legal system’ – a conspiracy
between citizens and legal institutions, each acting within defined areas so as
to maximize power. Jurisprudential analysis of this nature is thought provoking
and valuable.
Perhaps the most
important product of a study of jurisprudence emerges in an enhanced ability to
discern the shape of legal things to come, albeit in shadowy and inchoate form.
The attitudes of today’s legal theoreticians in relation to matters such as mens
rea, causation, the concept of economic loss in tort, the basis of property
rights, and the nature of parental responsibility, might mark tomorrow’s
ideologies and legal structures. A study of the modes of thought of
contemporary jurists contemplating ‘the destination of the law’ cannot but be
advantageous to those who have an interest in the future of society and the
law.
None of these comments
should be taken, however, as denying the existence of trivial, often worthless,
theorising in the name of jurisprudence. Feinberg’s objections to ‘portentous
and hoary figures from the past’ being paraded, each with an odd vocabulary,
and a host of dogmatic assertions, to the confusion of students, are not to be
ignored. These objections may add weight to Arnold’s complaint. But interest in
the past for its own sake has little appeal to lawyers or students. ‘Jurisprudence
for its own sake’ is now almost a meaningless slogan. Jurisprudence has
changed its objectives and its methodology. The search for justice in human
relationships, the search for certainty in the law and the continuous probing
of the role of the State in the recognition, promulgation, and enforcement of
human rights are rarely absent from legal theorising. The result is a
challenging of entrenched positions and narrow certainties, and a questioning
of the hitherto unquestionable. This is, indeed, a sign of ‘conflict’; but it
is also a sign of vitality.
When Stone wrote of the
science of jurisprudence as ‘the lawyer’s extraversion ... the light derived
from present knowledge in disciplines other than the law’, he acknowledged the
structures of legal theory as being linked totally with other studies, thus
proclaiming the relevance of jurisprudence to life in general and everyday law
in particular.
In that sense, a study
of jurisprudence can be valuable in that it ensures perceptions of the law in
the setting of a comprehensible, changing world. At times, these perceptions
will appear, in Arnold’s words, as ‘a troubling mass of conflicting ideas’,
chaotic and often contradictory. But this is not necessarily a negative or
undesirable state of affairs, for it is in the attempted resolution of apparent
contradictions that the study of jurisprudence can be advanced.