Analysis of Jurisprudence Thoughts

Analysis of Jurisprudence Thoughts:

Jurisprudence is the scientific study of law. That is, it provides a theory or explanation for the necessity of laws. Law is a body of enforceable rules governing relationships among individuals and between individuals and the society. In other words, law is minimal requirement of expectation of behavior, allowing maximum free choices to each person. Law is both substantive and procedural.

There are three schools of Jurisprudence thoughts. The first one is Natural Law. Natural Law postulates that law, rights and ethnics are based on universal moral principles inherent in nature discoverable through the human reason. That is, God through the Ten Commandments is the source of law and it is written on our conscience though interpretation may vary from culture to culture. The Ten Commandments, the Constitution, and the International law are examples of Natural Law' and they originated from Aristotle. For example, "Thou shall not kill" has a universal application but its interpretation may be different depending on the culture in which you live. However, the diverse nature of our society and belief system poses a challenge for the Natural Law, because not everyone believes in the existence of god or the Ten Commandments.

On the other hand, Positivism Law states that law is the supreme will of the state that applies only to the citizens of the nation at a particular time. Therefore, law and rights and ethics are not universal. It does not matter whether the law is good or bad. No natural rights, only obligations to pay taxes, period! The Diabolic Law made by Hitler to annihilate the Jews and the handicapped children n Germany would be a good example. The premise is that the state rules, even if the ruler is a tyrant or despot like Hitler.

The Third school of Thoughts is Legal Realism and says that, Jurisprudence is based on Judge's decisions and values to promote social justice. It contends that law is experiential, not logic and should reflect the social changes in our dynamic society.

Clearly, the defendants in the Nuremberg Trial in Germany were not guilty of the state law which allowed or encouraged them to perpetrate some of the worst crimes against humanity, because they were just following orders from the state (Hitler). They were citizens of the state and obeying the law of the land at that particular time.

Similarly, it would be difficult to fund any violation under Legal Realism, because the Judges would have to make the determination based on their on values and the prevailing sentiment in Germany of that time.

The only hope of conviction would be under the Natural Law, because by human reasoning they should have known that killing the innocent Jews and the handicapped