Lon Fuller?s Case of the Speluncean Exp/ ~rers is the greatest fictitious legal case of all
time. That is saying a lot, for it has some stiff competition. While its competitors
may outdo it in courtroom drama, character development, or investigative
suspense, none matches it in legal depth or dialectical agility It shows not what
makes some lawyer?s caseload interesting, but what makes law itself interesting. It
would not make a good movie; it is all ?talking heads.? In fact, the parts that
would make a good movie - the events within the cave - are over and done with
by the time Fuller begins his piece. Moreover, these events are not depicted with
cinematic vivacity, but described after the fact with judicial precision and bland-
ness.
Fuller?s live Supreme Court justices tranquilly but rigorously show the
complexity of the facts and the flexibility of legal reasoning. The live opinions
focus on different factual details and legal precedents, and lit them into different
background structures of legal and political principle. By these means Fuller
crystallizes important conflicts of principle and illustrates the major schools of
legal philosophy in his day. Fuller?s case has been called ?a classic in jurispru-
dence,? ? a microcosm of this century?s debates,? and a ?breathtaking intellectual
accomplishment.?*
Although only half a century separates us from the date of Fuller?s essay, the
legal landscape has changed profoundly. I have written nine new judicial opin-
ions on his case, with roughly Fuller?s own objectives in view, hoping to explore
important issues of principle and in the process to bring the depiction of legal
philosophy up to date.
While I would like to depict the major schools of legal philosophy today,
giving each its due, there are a few obstacles that subtly constrain the project.
Suber, Peter. Case of the Speluncean Explorers: Nine New Opinions.
Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, 1998. p ix.
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/cityu/Doc?id=2003075&ppg=9
Copyright ? 1998. Routledge. All rights reserved.
Preface
Introduction 1
Pt. I Lon Fuller's Case of the Speluncean Explorers 5
Opinion of Chief Justice Truepenny 7
Opinion of Justice Foster 10
Opinion of Justice Tatting 15
Opinion of Justice Keen 20
Opinion of Justice Handy 25
Opinion of Justice Tatting 31
Postscript 32
Pt. II Nine New Opinions 33
Opinion of Chief Justice Burnham 35
Opinion of Justice Springham 45
Opinion of Justice Tally 57
Opinion of Justice Hellen 64
Opinion of Justice Trumpet 73
Opinion of Justice Goad 79
Opinion of Justice Frank 89
Opinion of Justice Reckon 91
Opinion of Justice Bond 99
Index 108
萨伯(Peter suber,1951- ),影响甚广的“开放近用运动”(open Access Movement,提倡在科研文献发表的同时,将电子文本在网上公布,以便读者免费取阅)的发起人。1973年毕业于美国叶尔汉姆学院,1978年获西北大学哲学博士学位。长期担任叶尔汉姆学院哲学教授,也讲授法律、计算机等其他课程。萨伯从事很多领域的社会活动,兼任SPARC(“学者出版与学术资源联盟”)高级研究员和耶鲁大学法学院信息社会项目访问学者等多项职务,还是两家网站(openaccessnews和ODenaccessletters)的博客作者。1991年出版专著《自我修正的悖论》。
首先同意判决死刑。照这种判法,那六个人是无论如何都会全部死掉的,无论全饿死,或者吃了其中一个,其他五个被判死刑等等,统统都会死掉。 如果被困的不是六个人,而是几千人几万人呢,如果按照这种判法,是不是他们最后的结局也只能是全部死掉呢?这显然不行。 所以想...
评分 评分1、正如伯纳姆法官的意见,这几个人完全可以等到其中一个饿死再吃他的尸体,斯普林汉姆法官辩称等一个人饿死的时候其他人可能也快死了,是的,但这种情况下的生存率是存在的,而且和没有希望相比还是无限之高,也就是说,这几个人根本没有到无从选择的地步,这是此案和卡涅阿德...
评分“五名洞穴探险人受困山洞,水尽粮绝,无法在短期内获救。为了维生以待救援,大家约定抽签吃掉其中一人,牺牲他以救活其余四人。威特摩尔是这一方案的最初提议人,但在抽签前又收回了意见。其他四人仍执意抽签,并恰好选中了威特摩尔做牺牲者。获救后,这四人以杀人罪被起诉并...
评分“洞穴奇案”被称为“史上最大的虚构案例”,在对“洞穴奇案”进行概括时发现,讨论洞穴奇案需要注意几个前提:被困者尝试建立一个新的“社会契约”;被告(即存活者)为了生存才杀害被害者;被告除了吃掉被害者之外,只有死亡这一个选择。随后在对十四位法官的观点进行...
案件不算新奇了,探讨的法理学问题倒是不错
评分刑法21條的緊急避險很實用啊,法不責人所不能,至于該案不公平的問題,民法領域貌似有一條『契約自由』原則,但畢竟有罪與否還是得取决于那些前提假設條件的,當然,道德幷非構成殺人罪名的依據,同理,民衆意向亦非無罪的理由
评分頗好讀, 但沒想像中精辟,結論顯而易見---- 大概因為我太偏激.
评分2012年02月27日——2012年03月11日
评分极力推荐
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息,本站不存储任何数据与内容,任何内容与数据均与本站无关,如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美书屋 版权所有