Business Law in the Annals Term Paper

Justice Keen's Reasoning

Seemingly going against the rulings of both Foster and Tatting, Justice Keen gave a resounding guilty verdict for a very simple reason- the law of the land is the law of the land, murder is murder, and no grey areas in regard to this should be allowed to exist. Either the defendants are guilty or not guilty, and in the viewpoint of Keen, the defendants are guilty without question.

Justice Handy's Reasoning

Justice Handy's rendering of a not guilty verdict is based on a rather simple set of criteria- the polls of public opinion. Using public opinion polls about the guilt or innocence of the defendants as a benchmark, Handy decided that because the polls overwhelmingly ruled that the defendants were not guilty, so too Justice Handy would rule in the same way. Coming to be known as the Public Poll Theory, Handy let the voice of the common people be heard in the case.

The Most and Least Convincing Reasoning in the Case

Obviously, the Justices took opposing views on the question of guilt or innocence, and likewise for many unique reasoning systems. Because of this, there is reasoning in the case that is most convincing as there is reasoning that is least convincing, both for specific reasons.

The most convincing reasoning in the case is clearly that of Justice Keen; rather than being influenced by popular opinion, an overwhelming amount of case law on both sides, and the strange nature of the case itself, Keen used the law of the land and his judicial power as the guide to swiftly and confidently deliver the guilty verdict.

Conversely, the refusal of Justice Tatting to rule on the case, combined with his unusual reasoning for not doing so, are the least convincing arguments in the case. Those in a role like Tatting must be able to make important decisions and verdicts, even in light of confusion and controversy.

Conclusion

The Speluncean Case is momentous not only for the bizarre nature of the case, but also for the bizarre verdicts and reasoning in the case. Whatever the matter, perhaps the best take away from this research is that the law is complex, may and does divide people, and requires the participation of the judges and citizens alike to properly function.