Element 2
Element n
Consequences
Consequence 1
Consequence 2
Consequence n
Figure 3.3 Legal Rule as a Conditional Statement
This diagram displays the three components of a legal rule in the following
way:
(1)
Elements. The top part of the diagram lists the elements, Elements 1-n.
(2)
Consequences. The bottom part of the diagram lists the consequences
provided by the legal rule, Consequences 1-n.
(3)
Conditional Statement. Between the elements and the consequences lies
an arrow indicating that when
the elements are satisfied, the consequences
follow. Thus the arrow represents causation in that satisfying the elements
cause consequences. As we have noted, a conditional statement is also, in this
context, a statement of causation. Thus, the statement “Elements 1-n cause
Consequences” can also be expressed in the form “If Elements 1-n are
satisfied, Consequences follow”. While the arrow is included in this diagram to
emphasise that a rule is a conditional statement it is generally omitted in other
contexts.
Rule of Law
Introduction
Common law jurisprudence extols the rule of law under which all persons are
equal before the law. Or, putting this in a refined way, people in a similar
position should be treated in a similar way by the law. This means that when
elements delineate categories of facts to which a rule applies, they should not
improperly discriminate. Consequently, for the most part
elements of a legal
rule should describe facts in general or categorical terms. It therefore goes
strongly against
this notion of equality before the law if one person is singled
out for special treatment, particularly where it is strongly punitive or rewarding.
A classic illustration of this from legal history consists of the Act of attainder.
Act of Attainder
An Act of attainder was an Act of parliament declaring a person or an
identifiable group of persons guilty of some crime, and determining their
punishment; thus they were convicted and punished without benefit of a trial in
a court of law.
59
When convicted the person was said to be attainted of the
___________________
59
Matthew Manweller “Independent Review” 22 March 2002 argues that
legislatively furnished reparation pacakages migh constitute an Act of attainder.
 |
 |
 |