{"title":"法律方法能伸张正义吗?玛丽·简·莫斯曼的当代思考","authors":"Jay Nemec","doi":"10.1177/1037969X231189058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As Mary Jane Mossman has identified, and despite it containing ample room for judges to choose, legal method has customarily been used as a tool to preserve the status quo and exclude other perspectives. This Brief combines personal experiences in the law with contemporary cases to demonstrate why justice is still so rare. I argue that it is not possible for justice to be consistently achieved without changing the predominant legal method.","PeriodicalId":44595,"journal":{"name":"Alternative Law Journal","volume":"48 1","pages":"221 - 224"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Can the legal method produce justice? Contemporary reflections on Mary Jane Mossman\",\"authors\":\"Jay Nemec\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1037969X231189058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As Mary Jane Mossman has identified, and despite it containing ample room for judges to choose, legal method has customarily been used as a tool to preserve the status quo and exclude other perspectives. This Brief combines personal experiences in the law with contemporary cases to demonstrate why justice is still so rare. I argue that it is not possible for justice to be consistently achieved without changing the predominant legal method.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44595,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"48 1\",\"pages\":\"221 - 224\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Alternative Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X231189058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Alternative Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1037969X231189058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
正如玛丽·简·莫斯曼(Mary Jane Mossman)所指出的那样,尽管法律方法为法官提供了充分的选择余地,但它通常被用作维持现状和排除其他观点的工具。本摘要结合个人在法律上的经历和当代的案例来说明为什么正义仍然如此罕见。我认为,如果不改变主要的法律方法,就不可能始终如一地实现正义。
Can the legal method produce justice? Contemporary reflections on Mary Jane Mossman
As Mary Jane Mossman has identified, and despite it containing ample room for judges to choose, legal method has customarily been used as a tool to preserve the status quo and exclude other perspectives. This Brief combines personal experiences in the law with contemporary cases to demonstrate why justice is still so rare. I argue that it is not possible for justice to be consistently achieved without changing the predominant legal method.