1- Please create a title for your post by putting it in bold, “header 2” as the first line of your text. This way, everyone can skim the discussion and quickly get an idea of what topics are covered.

2- Lon Fuller’s case of the grudge informers was meant to show the normative consequences of adopting a definition, concept, or descriptive theory of law.

We consider a situation (fairly obviously modeled on Nazi Germany) in which a recognized, continuous legal system falls into the hands of The Purple Shirts (Hitler’s violent youth gangs were known as the Brown Shirts). They pass secret laws, convict people ex post facto, have secret trials without the right to know who or what accusation is being made, and so forth. The Purple Shirts would sometimes simply execute those considered enemies without trial but in open, legal-like executions. Other times they would do it secretly. Some people took advantage of the situation to “report” on their personal enemies. They would secretly accuse them of opposing the Purple Shirt regime and the Purple Shirts would carry out a quick judicial execution on their marital rivals, for example.

Later, after the Purple Shirts were overthrown, the new government is inundated with people who wanted justice not only against the purple shirts but against the “grudge informers” who used the legal framework for killing others.

This question is posed to five “deputies” who argue for different policies based on their legal philosophies. The point is that which legal philosophy we accept has consequences for what we should do about this case.� Hence the “correct” concept of law is a normative issue. The question is not simply which deputy has the right legal philosophy, but which legal philosophy ought we to have considering this case? (What conception justifies the rule of law and which conception would it justify? It reminds us that the issue is not an abstract definition but concrete actions that depend on what we think of as the law.

3- Here is the discussion prompt:

What would you do in the Grudge Informer case? Defend your position. You can adopt one of the justices’ positions or make up your own. Explain why you disagree with the other positions.

ANSWER

HYBRID THIRD-FOURTH DEPUTIES’ LEGAL PHILOSPHIES

Name of the student

Course

Affiliation

Instructor’s name

Submission date

Lon Fuller’s Case if the Grudge Informers Discussion: HYBID THIRD-FOURTH DEPUTY LEGAL PHILOSPHY

The Grudge Informer’s case and the legal philosophies adopted by the five deputies illustrate some of the problems associated with the concept of law, what deserves and should be referred to as the rule of law, and what legal ideas capture law. Moreover, Lon Fuller’s case presents a legal dilemma on whether the acts of the past regime’s (Purple Shirts) grudge informers were deserving of prosecution. In this case, my position resonates and aligns with the third and fourth Deputies (Dyzenhaus, 2008). The third deputy argues for a logical solution that shows that an objective moral order is a crucial part of the law and legal institutions. The fourth deputy argues that a uniform legal process should be developed, recommending a uniform and consistent law for dealing with the grudge informers. These two deputies agree that the grudge informers’ actions are morally wrong, conducted illegalities, and must be punished. Therefore, the solution should include adopting a uniform legal system and procedures that provide a background for analyzing all grudge informer cases that incorporates moral fortitude and values. Just as Fuller argues, acknowledging the moral fortitude and virtue of right and wrong rules maximizes the acceptance of the morality concerning law.

The legal dilemma presented in the case study shows the interrelationship and connection of morality and law. The cases presented should be heard one by one and individually under the newly uniform developed law to ensure every individual receives justice. According to Hart, morality has a high influence on law, and it reinforces it equally (Diviacchi, 2017). Similarly, people are morally responsible for their actions; they should also be legally entitled to their decisions and actions.  Even though some deputies argue for not prosecuting the grudge informers, the problem is grave for the citizens and the state. The citizens are aggressive and in an uproar over the ethical systems and matters associated with the cases. Moreover, if insufficiently and unlawfully solved or left unattended to, it becomes a risk factor with high susceptibility of social chaos, feuds, and intrastate conflicts. This is because, to some citizens, the grudge informers were involved in indirect and unlawful murdering, which should be addressed legally and sufficiently. Deputy 2 argues that the grudge informers acted through the Purple Shirts anarchic rule should not be prosecuted due to the law’s scarce essence. However, with a uniform legal system and procedure aligned with the current regime, modern democratic measures, justice, and moral fortitude can ease the public chaos (Dyzenhaus, 2008). Deputy 2 suggests forgetting the atrocities committed during the Purple Shirts anarchic regime people as the atrocities were neither lawful nor unlawful. However, logically, this is unacceptable, as overlooking the atrocities will include the grudge informers.

The first deputy argues in line with classical and stringent positivism, claiming that the grudge informers may have been morally wrong but legally right. Making such a conclusion and general arguments are insufficient, as the law was defected, which requires the government to protect its citizens. Deputy 1 fails to recognize that the Shirtism rules and activities diminished the state’s duty of protection to its citizens. Taking advantage of the corrupted and anarchic power to prosecute personal enemies was both immoral and unlawful (Dyzenhaus, 2008). Hence, it is crucial to have fair legal trails under universally and accepted law and moral values in the country. Finally, just like the second deputy, the fifth deputy advocates for no action to be taken, which is insufficient and misleading as the grudge informers operated in unjust laws. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, law is “An ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has the care of the community.” (Doe, 2017). With this description, the law under the Purple Shirts was unjust, not for the common good and diminishes a country’s duty for protection. Therefore, deputy 5, 2, and 1 present ironical solutions, which is doing nothing, showing they do not support the law to protect the citizens, yet they are mandated to protect the citizens.

References

Diviacchi, V. (2017). Existential Philosophy of Law. SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3008894#.

Doe, N. (2017). Christianity and Natural Law: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Dyzenhaus, D. (2008). The Grudge Informer Case Revisited. New York Universiity Law Review, Vol 83(4), pp: 1000-1034.