I work with a trainee lawyer. He's been telling me about Jurisprudence and two of the theories involved. A few things clicked in to place for as I recognised that some of my fellow posters seem to approach this case from a Positivist stance, whereas I approach the case from Naturalist stance. (I'm going off what little theoretical info he has explained to me).
My understanding is that a Naturalist stance would involve frustration at tactics such as refusing to examine grounds of appeal that have already been looked at, even if further info has come to light since that initial examination. Whereas my Positivist cousins would believe that legal processes need to be adhered to in a pure sense and therefore it is tough shit., the ground has already been examined.
Is this making sense to anyone?
