Legal vs. Factual Normative Questions & the True Scope of Ring

49 Pages Posted: 21 Sep 2017 Last revised: 6 May 2018

Emad H. Atiq

Princeton University - Department of Philosophy

Date Written: April 27, 2018

Abstract

When is a normative question a question of law rather than a question of fact? The short answer, based on common law and constitutional rulings, is: it depends. For example, if the question concerns the fairness of contractual terms, it is a question of law. If it concerns the reasonableness of dangerous risk-taking in a negligence suit, it is a question of fact. If it concerns the obscenity of speech, it was a question of fact prior to the Supreme Court’s seminal cases on free speech during the 1970s, but is now treated as law-like. This variance in the case law cannot be explained by traditional accounts of the law/fact distinction and has fueled recent skepticism about the possibility of gleaning a coherent principle from judicial rulings.

This Article clarifies a principle implicit in the settled classifications. I suggest that judicial practice is consistent: it can be explained by the distinction between normative questions that are convention-dependent and those that are convention-independent. Convention-dependent normative questions, or those that turn essentially on facts about conventions (roughly, what we do around here) are reasonably classified as questions of law. By contrast, convention-independent normative questions, which turn primarily on fundamental moral norms concerning what persons are owed simply on account of being persons, are properly classified as questions of fact. This principle, echoed in recent holdings, clarifies law/fact classifications in such diverse areas as torts, contracts, First Amendment law and criminal procedure.

The principle also promises to resolve a looming constitutional controversy. In Ring v Arizona, the Supreme Court held that all factual findings that increase a capital defendant’s sentence must be decided by the jury under the 6th Amendment. Two recent denials of cert. suggest that members of the Court wish to revisit, in light of Ring, the constitutionality of judges deciding whether a criminal defendant deserves the death penalty. Applying the principle to Ring, I argue that the question of death-deservingness is a convention-independent normative question, and for that reason should be deemed a factual question for the jury.

Keywords: conventions, norms, judicial decision-making, standards of review, ring v arizona, sentencing, fairness, reasonableness, law-fact

Suggested Citation

Atiq, Emad H., Legal vs. Factual Normative Questions & the True Scope of Ring (April 27, 2018). Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, Vol. 32, 2018. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3039186

Emad H. Atiq (Contact Author)

Princeton University - Department of Philosophy ( email )

Princeton, NJ
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
65
rank
310,900
Abstract Views
392
PlumX