ON JUSTIFICATION OF LEGAL DECISIONS – EFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS
THE YEARBOOK OF THE ,,GH.ZANE” INSTITUTE OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH
VOL. 22, ISSUE 1, 81-86, 2013
Certain epistemological, logical and social problems of the justification of legal decisions are analyzed in this paper. The thesis is upheld that their efficiency is more important than logical correctness or objective truth -.with efficiency having procedural, moral and economic dimensions. There are two main types of legal decisions – establishment of empirical facts and classification of actions under certain norms. The establishment of empirical facts is faced up with the problem of objectivity of knowledge. Certain specific features of judicial knowledge make it differ from scientific knowledge. There exists an objective duality of institutions of judicial evidence and legal decision-making. The search for material truth is its main task according to the rules of procedure. It relies on established empirical facts and not only on interpretation and language context. But it is possible to have a logically correct decision that is not truth. The results of court proceedings come up as arguments in a reasoning game. Objective truth and creativity are indispensable in the court game. It is impermissible to go beyond its rules: they are enacted in texts of law. Some arguments are forwarded saying that court cases have not only one correct decision. Several competing correct (“right”) solutions can be in clash in a given court game within a framework defined by existing rules of procedure. Very important is the economic aspect of a case – it can be successfully analyzed by means of the decision-theoretic methodology of the Law and Economics School.
Decision theory, Law and Economics School, Legal Decisions, Efficiency, Correctness