Why Precedent in Law (and Elsewhere) is Not Totally (or Even Substantially) about Analogy
23 Pages Posted: 27 Aug 2007 Last revised: 27 Aug 2009
Date Written: August 2007
Abstract
Cognitive scientists and others who do research on analogical reasoning often claim that the use of precedent in law is an application of reasoning by analogy. In fact, however, law's principle of precedent is quite different. The typical use of analogy, including the use of analogies to earlier decisions in legal argument, involves the selection of an analog from multiple candidates in order to help make the best decision now. But the legal principle of precedent requires that a prior decision be treated as binding, even if the current decision-maker disagrees with that decision. When the identity between a prior decision and the current question is obvious and inescapable, precedent thus imposes a constraint quite different from the effect of a typical argument by analogy. The importance of this is not so much in showing the a common claim in the psychological and cognitive science literature is mistaken, but that the possibility of making decisions under the constraints of binding precedent is itself an important form of decision-making that deserves to be researched in its own right.
Keywords: precedent, analogy, legal reasoning, thinking and reasoning, cognitive psychology, Advocacy and Persuasion, Ethics/Political Philosophy, Law and Legal Institutions
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Paper statistics
Recommended Papers
-
Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding
By Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich, ...
-
Sentencing Decisions: Matching the Decisionmaker to the Decision Nature
-
Taking Behavioralism Too Seriously? The Unwarranted Pessimism of the New Behavioral Analysis of Law
-
Reason is Too Large: Analogy and Precedent in Law
By Dan Hunter
-
Coding Complexity: Bringing Law to the Empirical Analysis of the Supreme Court