Law of Life
Laws Of Life: The Philosophy Of The Law Of Attraction
Throughout history, humanity has developed various tools to achieve personal evolution and enlightenment to varying degrees of success. One such philosophy that has gained significant traction in popular discourse is the Law of Attraction, which posits that energies attract to like energies, theoretically making it possible to improve one’s life through thought. Unfortunately, the current scientific landscape is void of significant research regarding the law of attraction and its efficacy, leaving distinct gaps in current research. Due to this lack of scientific support, many in the general public falsely view the Law of Attraction as pseudoscience; ineffective at best and destructive at worst. This research centers around the hypothesis that the Law of Attraction is not a pseudoscience, but rather a demonstration of the power of focus. While these effects may be difficult to quantify, it remains an interesting area of research that requires further study. The following will examine the background of the law of attraction, as well as contribute pertinent data to the ongoing scientific discourse surrounding this under-researched school of thought. It will offer the results of a brief qualitative research study that uses a comprehensive field experiment to measure the efficacy of the Law of Attraction and contribute to current multidisciplinary discourse.
The Law of Attraction is a philosophy centered in the school of New Thought, although elements of its principles can be seen throughout history. The Law of Attraction is a philosophy that centers around the belief that positivity attracts positivity and vice-versa when concerning the thought process. This is because thought is associated with an energy that is exuded, which theoretically creates changes to the energy surrounding an individual. There are various tools and strategies that can be used in the Law of Attraction to facilitate these thoughts, including meditation, journaling, chanting, affirmations, vision boards, etc.
Current literature shows that the law of attraction, although a relatively modern concept, has been practiced under other names across time and cultures, including institutionalized religions like Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. One of the central tenants of the law of attraction has been a key component in various religions and philosophies throughout human history, which is the concept of mindfulness. Current scientific research shows that practicing mindfulness has a host of physiological benefits, and can significantly improve overall quality of life.
Recently, scientific discourse has made great strides in accepting the existence of the mind-body connection, as the physiological relationship between the thinking and feeling realms has become indisputable. The Law of Attraction is, essentially, the practice of influencing the body through the mind, as mental focus is meant to facilitate the completion of external goals. For example, it an individual uses the Law of Attraction to become healthier; consistent mental focus and attention will make physical follow-through much more likely.
It is important to note that despite the reputation of the school of New Thought in popular culture, much of it, including the Law of Attraction, is based in reason and logic. Overall, the limited research regarding the law of attraction indicated that the components of this practice are conducive to success because they elicit focus, action, and reflection. Despite the current lack of scientific evidence, the Law of Attraction encourages personal growth and development, which objectively leads to greater contentment and quality of life. As such, it is critical that more scientific research be dedicated to the Law of Attraction to see the depths to which it may be beneficial.
This study employed a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to ascertain the efficacy of the law of attraction. The methodology used for the experiment portion of this research is informal field experimentation and based on the participants’ senses. The experimental group consisted of four participants. Two of the participants were told the following words: bumfuzzle, conjubilant, and poppycock. The other two participants were given no such instruction, but both groups were told to talk to me again in 48 hours. These results were then recorded at the end of the 48-hour period and compared to the previously compiled research.
The results of the experiment were that one individual from the first group remembered hearing the word bumfuzzle during the 48 hour time frame, while the other group did not report hearing any of those words during this time. These results show that 25 percent of the participants heard a word, which exceeded the expectations of the interviewer. These results were gathered through a brief telephone interview with each participant, and they consented in having this experiment incorporated into this research. The data gathered from qualifies as qualitative and quantitative; it is informal and based on the participants’ senses, but it is also is a source of statistics.
The overall objective of this experiment was to get informal data about how the mind influences experiences. Whether the participant who did hear one of the words used in the experiment, or she was experiencing the power of suggestion, the end result is the same. As such, this gives credence to the power of the law of attraction. Although small in scope, this experiment reinforces existing research regarding the influence of the mind. The fact that one of the participants heard the obscure word at all signifies a correlation, which may also speak to other psychological phenomenon and the influence the mind has on the senses. The primary limitations of this experiment, and most other research concerning subjects such as law of attraction, is that it is impossible to objectively prove that the mind influenced the external world; the evidence is witness testimony. As such, experiments where people report their anecdotal evidence are often the most effective method to create and gather data pertaining to such phenomenon. However, this does not negate the existence of law of attraction, but rather necessitates new experimentational approaches.
Future research could expand upon using the Law of Attraction to achieve specific goals beyond remembering certain words. This experiment showed that the power of thought may either attract like words to an individual focusing on them, make one more sensitive to hearing distinct words, or to believe they are hearing certain words while they are not. In the future, experiments may center around whether the law of attraction can have more profound effects, including changing one’s physical or mental health, or attracting certain concrete things into one’s life.
Ultimately, this research shows that the Law of Attraction is not pseudoscience, but rather a philosophy that does not claim to be science. Whether it be called the power of suggestion, synchronicity, mindfulness, etc., the Law of Attraction is worth exploring due to the preponderance of research concerning the mind-body connection. The data gathered in this research combined with the current literature review show that there is interesting potential in the Law of Attraction that should not be discounted due to the use of stereotyping and inaccurate perceptions.
Laws Of Life And A Person’s Conscience
What are our ‘Laws of Life’? They are what we live by, what we base our decisions on, and what we abide by. We follow these decisions based on what we believe is the right thing to do. My central law of life, is that I follow what my conscience tells me. A person’s conscience can be their strongest weapon when traversing the complicated and sometimes irrational roads we face. Each individual person has different laws they follow, each based on their own conscience. The conscience is important, but if we are to follow its guidance, we have to differentiate intrusive thoughts from the actual conscience itself.
What are intrusive thoughts though? Simply put, they are negative ideas or actions that ‘intrude’ in the person’s thoughts. According to Lecia Bushak, from the Medical Daily Website, four out of five people experience intrusive thoughts. I myself have experienced these. The issue with these intrusions, is that people can experience thoughts of self-harm, and harm to others, such as swerving into oncoming traffic, or cutting someone with a knife. They wish to rid themselves of these ideas, because they know deep down that they are the wrong things to perform, but alas, cannot. The thoughts are like a parasite; the more someone gives in to it, the stronger it grows, the stronger it becomes, the stronger of an influence it has over someone. The more power it has, the higher of a chance that one will cave and give in to these bad thoughts. So how can one tell the difference between their conscience and intrusions, so we can steer clear of the intrusive thoughts?
The conscience one owns is very crucial, very critical, and a very central part of them. It tells the separation from right and wrong, or in other words, gives the person a feeling if they are doing something right or wrong. The way to differentiate the conscience from intrusive thoughts, is that the conscience is not going to wish harm upon oneself or another. This helps people make the right decisions, because guilt falls upon a person if they, for example, purposely tell a lie or falsify the truth. Guilt has a very powerful impact, because of the influence it has over people. It is an amazing tool we can utilize, because it works in correlation with the conscience, in telling us what the right decision is. In the past year, I have noticed something I never had before. Each person on this earth has a different level of consciousness. Some will know the feeling of guilt well, as their conscience will let them know about each and every single thing they’ve done wrong. On the other hand, many do not know it as well, because their conscience does not inform them as much when they have done something incorrect. As for myself, I found this out when I was experiencing the difficulty of having this guilt every moment of the day, and then I could see another do something incorrect, or even worse than I did, and have absolutely no issue with it. I saw this, where varying people would range from going for an activity, to hesitating, to staying clear of it. This is when I noticed that not everyone has the same sort of consciousness as myself. I have been asking myself a year and longer question since the moment that sparked in me. Why do people have different levels of consciousness?
The parasite, (being the intrusion), begins to creep into the conscience, and take over. Slowly, beginning with walking in the council of the wicked, to standing in the way of sinners, to finally sitting in the seat of scoffers, by the time one is sitting, their conscience has no effect on them anymore. Because they have trained their self to see that there is no wrong in their doing. Bit by bit, the conscience begins to fade away. Starting with walking in the presence of the parasite, to standing near it, as one begins to feel more comfortable with it, they start to sit next to it. The moment that they sit next to the parasite, they have become part of the parasite. It is the sole reason why people can mentally do activities such as murder and selling drugs. The consciousness has been effectively dulled out. One cannot just jump right to the extremes though, they slowly, piece by piece, add more despicable things that they have done to their record. “Like a snowball rolling down a hill, one day we find ourselves, in a place, we thought we would never be, doing things, we thought we would never do, but because it was so slow, we’re totally rationalizing all of it. Because people never crumble in a day. It’s always a slow fade.” – Mark Hall, Casting Crowns
Philosophy of Law
The argument that Fuller makes in “The Morality of Law” is intriguing and requires a second look at the Riggs. V. Palmer (1889) case. I believe that the proper procedure would have been to allow Riggs to inherit his inheritance although that would have allowed a murderer to inherit from his victims which is morally unjust, as no murderer should ever inherit from his victim. But the main point of contention is that the law did not specifically forbid Riggs from his inheritance and it’s from this problem with the law itself that resulted in a dispute between two different standpoints. It is important to be morally just but important to follow the law, because if the judge doesn’t follow the law, what makes it seem the citizens will follow the law that wasn’t followed. It shows a precedent that some laws aren’t meant to be followed which is problematic.
Fuller discusses eight principles in regarding what an ideal society’s law would look like, one these we already discussed – that law cannot be retrospective meaning that laws can only regulate future behaviour, but this is also important to his response to hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law –A Reply to Prof. Hart” where they talk about the rise of Nazi rule in Germany and how that was a slow change in morality. It started with the small things and gradually changed to the point where law was no longer bound in morality. That’s an important point in contrast to Harts point. Hart took the view where morality and law were separate when you separate law and morality it can lead to rise of Germany under Hitler’s rule.
The reason why law works is because there is a morality behind it. However, I can also contend that there are some laws that don’t necessarily need a moral background and is just done in the name of civilization – parking laws, etc. At this point I’m torn between the two arguments but I do lean towards Fuller.
A Review Of Sherman Alexie’s Novel Family In Flight
Family is always a topic many authors want to write about and dig deeply due to the fact that everyone has a family in their minds whether it is biological. However, like anything in this life, a family could not always go well all the time without change, acceptance and sympathy. The themes of the story “Flight” will show us many emotional tones that any families have to get through such as family’s love, family’s conflicts and the law of life.
The first trait which protects and preserves a family is love. Despite many characters and many ways to express, blood relatives still love each other. As we can see, the old man in the story loves his granddaughter Alice so much that he does not want to let her leave. He wants to keep her to stay with him like pigeons. If he does not love her, he will not have that thinking. “She’s the last. Can’t we keep her a bit longer?” Only love makes people be fearful, be jealous and be possessive. He is not only afraid of losing her but also jealous with Steven. The same feeling is for his daughter Lucy and the other granddaughters. If he does not love them, he will not feel the pain of loss whenever they get married. It is illustrated through he keeps questioning Lucy like “Why do you make your girls marry? Why?” Lastly, only love can make him be repentant after shouting at Alice many times and make him sacrifice for Alice’s happiness at the end of story.
However, any family has to experience arguments at least once in life due to generation gap. The old man is the oldest one in this family and he just has pigeons to be friends. The old could easily feel lonely and unhappy with many things. This leads to be possessive and uncherished when everybody has gone though the dovecote is his refuge from his house. “But now the house would be empty Gone all the young girls with their laughter and their squabbling and their teasing.” He is so afraid of being left behind with his cold daughter that he reacts to marriages strongly to prevent them from leaving like “ ‘Rubbish,’ He shouted. ‘Rubbish. Impudent little bit of rubbish!” or “ ‘Liar,’ he said. ‘Liar” or Lucy’s words “You never did like it when we married. Every time, it’s the same. When I got married you made me feel like it was something wrong. And my girls the same”. If we take a closer look into it, he could not tell what he really thinks except yelling and complaining like a mad person. “But I never meant…” Moreover, he does not want Alice suffer from marriage like her sisters because her innocence and cuteness will be taken away. He wants Alice to be young, pretty and happy forever. “He thought of the other three girls, transformed inside a few months from charming petulant spoiled children into serious young matrons.” In contrast, Lucy is mature and Alice is the youth and they really do not understand the old man’s desire. Lucy wants to see Alice grow up and happy with Steven. Lucy understands her daughter and lets Alice to decide her life. Both of them know the law of life and are ready to change, to leave family and to be challenged. They get married when being slightly young and even Lucy never regret of that. However, the old man does not understand them.
The last theme of “Flight” is the law of life. When people grow up, they have to leave their parents to take care of their own family. This is a circle of life which most people face sooner or later. No one can go against it and the old man’s family is not an exception. If we do not change, we will be left behind. In the story, the old man does not accept this rule many times, from Lucy to Alice. He even gives an age excuse like “She’s eighteen. Eighteen!” then Lucy replies “I was married at seventeen” or responses “But it’s not the same” when Lucy tries to comfort him “Come one, now, Dad. She’ll be down the road, that’s all. She’ll be here every day to see you.” However, at the end of the story, eventually he could realize and learn the lesson of life. He loves his family, this is undeniable, but now he knows he has to let them go. They will fly away and get back because they also love him and still care about him. “It’s for you, Grandad. Steven bought it for you.’ They hung about him, affectionate, concerned, trying to charm away his wet eyes and his misery. They took his arms and directed him to the shelf of birds, one on each side, enclosing him, petting him, saying wordlessly that nothing would be changed, nothing could change, and that they would be with him always. The bird was proof of it.” He is just an old man in the beginning and becomes a true grandfather in the end. And the thing he gets for acceptance the law of life is a new pigeon and Lucy’s happy tears.
Bad Character Evidence: then and Now
One of the most well-known tenets of English law is that a person ‘should not be judged strenuously by reference to the awesome specter of his past life.’ This very well established tradition has led to the oft-cited rule of evidence law which prohibits reliance upon an individual’s character or evidence of other examples of misbehavior when they are proffered to corroborate that a person acted in a manner befitting his character on the occasion in question. English law has dealt with the question of an accused’s character for centuries and a rich wealth of authority exists to attest to this. This article attempts to summarise the old principles as well as the new rules governing the admission or non-admission of bad character evidence in criminal trials.
The old law
The admissibility of evidence of the previous misconduct of the defendant in a criminal trial has for over a hundred years been governed by a complex yarn of statute and common law. This assortment of rules under was later to gain statutory recognition and a comprehensive statement on the law of evidence on character evidence appeared in the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 whose section 1 generally dealt with the competence of witnesses in criminal cases. The approach regarding non-party witnesses and defendant witness was radically different with the latter being essentially exclusionary whilst the former was largely inclusionary.
A Non-Defendant Witnesses
There were two reasons to adduce the bad character of non-party witnesses: first, to undermine their credibility and suggest that they should not be believed on oath. Secondly, because it was directly relevant to a fact in issue at the trial; for example, to suggest that the alleged victim in an assault case is actually the aggressor, because of his previous record of violence. The position with regard to credibility was summarised in the libel case of Hobbs v Tinling in which the Court of Criminal Appeal suggested that a witness could be asked any question about his character or previous conduct from which the court could infer that he was ‘not worthy of belief, not a credible person’. This meant that he could be asked about previous convictions and any reprehensible associations or way of life. Thus, at common law, and unlike the relatively protected position of an accused person giving evidence, there were few legal constraints on cross-examining non-party witnesses in a criminal trial, though, since 1976, complainants in sexual cases have had special statutory protection in relation to their sexual histories. Some additional protection was provided by the 1975 Practice Direction, Crime: Spent Convictions. The Practice Direction provided that spent convictions should only be referred to in a criminal trial with leave of the presiding judge. This should only be given if the ‘interests of justice so require’ so that adducing it could not be ‘reasonably avoided’.
However, despite honest interventions to protect non-party witnesses, the law was largely inclusionary of all bad character evidence and could, therefore, lead to potentially unfair outcomes. The position was radically different with regard to defendant witnesses.
Under section 1 of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, a person charged and called as a witness under the Act could not be compelled to answer any question tending to show that he is of bad character or that he had committed or had been convicted of any other offense other than that with which he had been charged. This injunction against the solicitation of bad character evidence could be lost if the accused or by his advocate asked questions of the witnesses for the prosecution with a view to establishing his own good character or if he gave evidence of his own good character.
Thus, the scheme provided for by the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 compelled the accused to answer questions relating to his bad character in either of two situations: firstly, where the defense elicited evidence that the defendant is of good character, and secondly; where the defense attacked the character of prosecution witnesses. The evidence of character, whether adduced by the prosecution or the defense went towards showing the probability that the defendant had acted consistently with it during the case in point. The bad character evidence is meant to show ‘the tendency and disposition of the man’s mind towards committing or abstaining from committing the class of crime with which he stands charged…’ Thus, by adducing evidence of good character the defendant puts his character in issue, notwithstanding whether he takes the witness stand or not. But if he elects to give evidence, the bad character evidence also goes to his credibility as a witness. The most crucial feature of the provision was that the prosecution was not at liberty to cross-examine the defendant about his character unless he intentionally threw away the shield provided by the law.
The underlying justification for the exception to the injunction against adducing character evidence was explained in Maxwell v Director of Public Prosecutions where Viscount Sankey LC stated that if the accused or his witnesses give evidence of his own good character, for the purpose of showing that it is unlikely that he committed the offense charged, he raises by way of defense an issue as to his good character so that he may fairly be cross-examined to show the contrary.
It must be noted that the accused’s character is indivisible. Thus in R v Winfield Lord Humphreys held that ‘there is no such thing known to our procedure as putting half a prisoner’s character in issue and leaving out the other half.’ Thus, once the accused put his or her character in issue, then he or she opened the floodgates regarding which aspects of his or her character could be adduced by the prosecution. Whilst it is logical and fair to proffer evidence demonstrating prior convictions for fraud where the accused has put in evidence facts tending to show that a person of his or her character was unlikely to commit the fraud for which he has been charged; adducing evidence that is intended to show that he was convicted of assault seems to be somewhat questionable and could lead to unjust and unfair results.
The case of R v Winfield provides a very good illustration of these concerns. In that case, the defendant was charged and found guilty of indecent assault against a lady. In his defense, he called a witness to give evidence on his exemplary behavior towards women and thereby put his character in issue. The prosecution did not hesitate to cross-examine him on a prior conviction for theft and the Court of Appeal seems to have endorsed the cross-examination because the conviction was quashed on the basis of the inadequacy of corroborative evidence and not for the improper admission of evidence relating to the previous conviction for theft.
It is obvious from the above analysis that the limitless nature of the evidence that the prosecution could elicit once the accused had put his character in issue could prejudice the defendant’s fair trial. To prevent this, the courts developed rules whereby they exercised discretion whether or not to allow evidence of bad character whose probative value was outweighed by its prejudicial character. In Selvey v Director of Public Prosecutions, the question arose directly whether the trial judge had a discretion under section 1(f)(ii) to preclude the prosecution from cross-examining the accused about certain prior convictions once the shield is lost. It was held that such discretion does exist and that it should be exercised where it would be unfairly prejudicial to allow all previous convictions to be put to the accused.
The position regarding the safeguarding of fairness was bolstered by the issuance by the Court of Appeal of a Practice Direction which recommended that reference to spent convictions should be avoided wherever possible in criminal courts, even though the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act on which the Direction was based did not specifically extend to criminal proceedings.
However, the cases continued to show different standards being adopted in cases of previous convictions and bad character evidence generally and hence the Law Commission was tasked to undertake a comprehensive review of the law and make proposals which would encourage fairness in criminal trials. The result was the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The new law
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 brings in radical changes by abolishing the common law rules governing the admissibility evidence of bad character in criminal trials. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduces very radical changes to the law relating to the admission of evidence of the accused’s bad character. This effectively eliminates the principles which the Court in Selvey v Director of Public Prosecutions and R v Dunkley felt were such an intrinsic part of English law that they could not be modified.
Since the abolition also affects cases which define what constitutes bad character, section 98 attempts to delineate what makes up a person’s bad character. The section states that evidence of bad character constitutes evidence of misconduct or disposition towards misconduct. The provision excludes from its ambit of bad character evidence relating to any misconduct in connection with the investigation or prosecution of the offense. It also excludes such evidence as has to do with the alleged facts of the offense with which the defendant is charged. The rationale for this exclusion is that this kind of evidence is admissible at any rate as part of the material facts of the case and would have been allowed even under the old rules relating to the admissibility of bad character evidence. Although section 98 does not define what ‘disposition’ means, it is clear that the provision widens the ambit of admissible bad character evidence as it is not restricted to evidence of general reputation as was authoritatively stated in R v Rowton.
A Non-defendant witnesses
Section 100 allows non-defendants’ bad character to be adduced in three separate situations. Firstly, it will be admitted where both parties agree to the evidence being adduced. Secondly, it can be admitted if it is ‘important explanatory evidence’ and finally, under section 100(1)(b), such evidence can also be adduced if it has substantial probative value in relation to something which is both a ‘matter in issue in the proceedings, and is of substantial importance in the context of the case as a whole.’ In the latter two gateways, bad character evidence may only be adduced with the leave of court.
Thus, the new statutory scheme does away with the almost carte blanche approach that was permissible under the old rules. Whereas the court did not have much control over the admissibility of non-defendants’ bad character evidence, the new rules put the court at the center of the issues by requiring them to grant leave unless the adduction of such evidence has already been agreed.
Section 101 introduces even further radical changes. Whilst under section 1(f)(ii) of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, the defendant had to put his character in issue before being cross-examined on it, section 101 dispenses with this requirement and allows the defense to introduce bad character evidence, not only upon cross-examination but even during the giving of evidence in chief as long as such evidence meets the admissibility requirements under section 101.
According to the provisions of section 101, bad character evidence is admissible in any of the following cases:
- Where the defense and the prosecution agree to the evidence being admissible
- The evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it
- The evidence has important explanatory value
- It has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant
- It is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution
- If the defendant has made an attack against another person’s character
- If it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant
These categories of admissibility are further explained by the provisions of sections 102-106 which amplify the instances of admissibility detailed above. It is clear that these grounds of admissibility are not exclusionary of each other and it is possible for evidence of bad character to be adduced under one or more of the prescribed grounds.
With regard to the present discussion, it is noteworthy that the conditions for loss of the shield by the defendant under the first limb of section 1(f)(ii) have been preserved by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 under section 101(b). Thus, the defendant is still as liable to cross-examination under the new rules as he was under the Criminal Evidence Act 1898.
However, the Criminal Justice Act introduces an additional element. Section 101(b) must be read together with the provisions of sections 101(f) and 105 which allow the prosecution to lead evidence intended to correct a false impression. Thus, whilst under the Criminal Evidence Act, it was specifically required that the defendant put his or her character in issue first before he lost the shield, under the new rules mere assertion of circumstances which give a false impression may lead to the defendant being cross-examined on his bad character. Although the evidence allowed under these provisions is limited to correcting the false impression created by the defendant’s assertion, it is clear that he may still lose the shield without having put his character in issue but merely because he created a false impression.
Another fundamental change introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is that it shakes the principle that character is indivisible because under section 101 bad character evidence is only admissible only with regard to the grounds detailed under that section. The loss of a shield does not provide the prosecution one carte blanche to proffer bad character evidence without restriction. If the prosecution oversteps the boundaries and the court is of the opinion the evidence will prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial, it has discretion under section 101(3) to disallow the evidence. Thus, much to Lord Humphrey’s dismay, it is possible under the new law to put ‘half the defendant’s character’.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 makes critical changes to the law relating to the admissibility of bad character evidence as regards both defendant and non-defendant witnesses. Apart from detailing the grounds under which bad character evidence may be proffered, the law also introduces certainty into the principles which govern this area of the law by abolishing the common law rules some of which were complicated and lacked precision. Whilst in some respects the matters that may come up for admissibility have been enlarged, these changes are accompanied with fairly far-reaching procedural and substantive safeguards to ensure that the evidence submitted has substantial probative value as opposed to its prejudicial character. The rules cannot certainly be typified simply as being exclusionary or inclusionary as they combine both elements. However, the new rules should help secure the defendant’s right to a fair trial as provided under the Human Rights Act 1998 as well as the European Convention on Human Rights. It is difficult at this stage to predict how the courts will interpret and apply the new provisions. Obviously, one hopes that the courts will not produce case law that complicates the already extensive rules under the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Austin’s Theory of Law
According to Austin positive law has three main features :it is a type of command. It is laid down by a political sovereign. It is enforceable to sanction.
The connection of greater to inferior consist for Austin in the power which the former enjoy over the other i.e. his ability to punish him for disobedience the idea of sanction is built in Austin in idea of control.
There are commands which are laws and commands which are not law. Austin differentiate law from other commands by their simplification laws are general commands. However there can be exceptions. There can subsist laws such as acts of attainder which lack the character of generality.
According to Austin law is law only if it is efficient and it must be generally obeyed. Perfect respect is not necessary without general. obedience. the commands of law maker are empty as language which is no longer spoken what is sufficient for a legal theorist is that obedience exists.
According to Austin, laws are of two kinds: divine law and human law. Heavenly law was given by god to men, human being laws are set by men for men.
Human laws are two kinds: specific laws are set up political superiors and are positive law and there are other which are not set up political superiors. The second category covers charitable association and clubs.
According to Austin .laws strictly so called. are one particular species of set rules and consists of only those which are set by a sovereign authority to a member of an self-governing political civilization wherein that. person or body is sovereign or supreme.
A command is wish/desire to another so that he shall do a particular thing or abstain from doing a particular thing. in case of non- conformity with command .he has to for evil consequences .the permit behind law is the evil which is to be influenced in case of disobedience.
John Austin was born in 1790. In 1818 he was called to the bar. For seven years.he practised law but lacking success. In 1819 he married Sarah Taylor a women of great intelligence rule and beauty. When the university of London was founded Austin was appointed as professor of jurisprudence and he spent the next two years in preparing his lectures.
His opening lectures were attended by john Stuart Mill. Romilly and others .After initial success. Austin failed to attract new students and he resigned the chair in 1831. Through the efforts of his wife. an expanded description of the first part of the lectures was published in 1831. Under the title of “the province of jurisprudence determined “Austin repeated the lectures in 1834 but without success .Hence he gave up gave up teaching jurisprudence altogether.
Austin wrote with extreme difficulty. He imposed on himself he standards of precision and lucidity that. made work a torment .Between 1832 and 1859; he published only a couple. of articles and a pamphlet –a plea for the constitution.
The second edition of the province of jurisprudence was published by this widow in 1861. She also reconstructed from the notes of her husband “lectures on jurisprudence” or philosophy of positive law and published them in 1863.
Austin is called as the father of English jurisprudence and the creator of the analytical school. Allan prefers to call Austin school as the vital school. It is contented that Austin does not fit exactly into any of the important schools.
AUSTIN THEORY OF LAW
Austin’s most important contribution to Legal theory was substitution of the command of the sovereign. for any ideal of justice in the description of law.
He defined law as a rule laid down for the guidance of intelligent being by an intelligent being having. authority over him” law is strictly diverged from justice. It is based on the power of a superior .This units Austin with Hobbes and other of sovereignty.
According to Austin laws are of two kinds: Law of God, Human laws.
In Austin positivists of law .the law of god seems to fulfil too others purpose then that of serving As a respectable for Austin utilisation beliefs the principle of utility is the law of god. Laws properly so called (positive law)
Human law are divisible into probable laws and laws shockingly. So called the former are law set by. political superiors to political secondary or laws set by subjects as personal person in carefulness of legal rights approved to them.
Laws improperly so called are those laws which are not set directly or indirectly by a political superior.In this category are diverse type of rules, such as rules of clubs, law of style, laws of natural science. The rules of so called international law .Austin gave these the name of constructive morality.
Laws improperly so called also incorporated a final class called “laws by metaphor” which enclosed look of uniformities of nature.