Policy v. Principle

Dworkin's distinction between the use of principle and that of policy for adjudication did not seem like it was a new or distinct idea. I believe we have been seeing similar arguments along these lines, which all go back to trying to decide just where the line is that divides the amount and type of discretion that should be given to judges. The idea that policy is or should be the driving force behind judicial decisions is as Dworkin point's out not really applicable to all situations becuase these applications of policy are not very elaborate and do not allow room for the future presently unconcieved cases or situations that are to arise. This is why often times the application of principle as a guidepost to the law can be more beneficial to the process of adudicating namely becuase it allows for wide application and has a broader scope with which to apply to cases. I do agree with Dworkin when he talked about how there needs to be an interaction between the use of principle and policy and that the use of either can not alone be sufficient guidelines or limitaions upon a judges application of the law. There needs and depending upon the case is usually a mixture of these two forms within the discision that is reached. Judges should not strictly be held to follow policy, but should also not be free to run rampent applying principles that can not be consistenntly applicable.

Trying to Find the Balance

Kayla Frank

To draw the line between what is considered a principle and what is considered a rule, as Dworkin does, is to show the difference between ideals and facts, or at least logically backed thought. Principles are very nice oughts, they possess a kind of dream land quality that creeps towards moral debate, and starts grappling with right and wrong. Rules on the other hand tend to be more cut and dry, less arbitrary, and also keep more distance from moral questions. That is not to say that rules do not attempt to control behavior or that they favor certain actions over others, but that rules are more concrete and a great deal of the time are geared towards action. Rules have a plan; they offer a systematic approach to accomplishing the goal that may not be necessarily laid out within them, but they are fairly independently conclusive. Principles on the other hand have to be weighed. Some things are considered better objectives than others. This ordering of what is a more just or a more beneficial outcome can lead to inconsistency within the application of rules, but on the other side of that, always enforcing rules no matter the consequences hardly seems the best approach. Rules do not leave a lot of wiggle room. That being said about rules, I do not think that law should be without principle.