long way short of perfect.
310
In any event, there can also be difficulty in
ascertaining the actual effect of a law or an interpretation after it has been
made.
Thus the predicted effect of a statute and the actual effect (even if it can be
ascertained) will not necessarily be the same. Social scientists have labelled the
difference between the actual and predicted effects of a law as unintended
consequences.
311
Despite this distinction, for the diagrams that we use for analysing legal
reasoning there is usually just one table headed "Effect”. In this table, "Effect"
refers to either the predicted or the actual effect, or both, as the circumstances
require. This is done purely for convenience and simplicity. Obviously, on any
occasion when the difference between the predicted and actual effect is
important, it is necessary to use a separate column for the predicted and actual
effect as we have done above, or to point out the distinction in discussion.
Seventh, effects are important in legal reasoning because the only rational way
to proceed in making and interpreting law is to reason by reference to the
effect that a law or meaning of a law will cause if enacted or decreed to be
correct.
312
Put simply, the best law or the best meaning of a law is the one
which causes the best effect. This form of reasoning is labelled policy.
Eighth, for convenience in this chapter affects are classified as direct or
indirect. This is a little rough and ready. It is trying to capture the distinction
between the purely formal legal effect of laws and their interpretation on the
one hand and the social or derived effects on the other.
Direct Effects
Introduction
The direct effects of a law rest on its elements and consequences. Elements
define the facts that fall within or are caught by the law. Consequences are the
way in which the law seeks to alter the position of the parties in a formal legal
way.
Direct effects have two aspects. One is that by virtue of making or
interpretation the law is printed on the statute books or constitutes a chapter in
a textbook on common law, while the interpretation is pronounced in a case as
the official or correct version of the law. With regard to this part of the effect,
310
Baldwin (1990)
311
The United States sociologist Robert K Merton (1910-2003) is credited with
inventing the expression. See Merton (1936).
312
Christopher Enright Legal Reasoning Chapters 10-24
 |
 |
 |