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》。
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
“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...
评分因为最近考虑刑法正当化事由里的被害人同意 因此很有必有把洞穴奇案细读一遍 也有了些新的想法。 最基本的立场对持无疑是绝对道德主义vs相对道德主义的分野 我的立场是站在功利主义这一方 当然决定这个立场除了道德层面的取向 也有实在法层面上的问题 例如避免饥饿到底算...
评分首先,当面对着一个如此复杂和矛盾的案件时,我完全同意弗兰克法官的观点,即所有依靠不甚精确甚至自相矛盾的法律条文来断定被告有罪或无罪的的判决结果统统都不过是法律语言包装之下的个人意见。如果单单在法理上就既有诸如“故意杀人”和“有意杀人”此类的争执,又有“免责...
可能是我对法理学还不熟悉吧,我觉得讨论过来讨论过去,只是在文字上的辩解而已。倒是有几个比较有意思的点:法律的目的,“故意”,可替代的方法,还有对紧急避险的讨论。第十的那里,标题是忍受不正义好过实施不正义,但我觉得我们应该把作为和不作为放在一个平等的位置上。
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
评分法理學經典案例
评分但外行女心中仍有个疑问,就是撇开杀人这一事实和所有细节不说,人吃人这个情节,在人伦上难道不更摇摇欲坠?
评分可能是我对法理学还不熟悉吧,我觉得讨论过来讨论过去,只是在文字上的辩解而已。倒是有几个比较有意思的点:法律的目的,“故意”,可替代的方法,还有对紧急避险的讨论。第十的那里,标题是忍受不正义好过实施不正义,但我觉得我们应该把作为和不作为放在一个平等的位置上。
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