Linguistic and analytical skills
Quite apart from the capacity to work hard, law students require good linguistic and analytical skills. Although these may sound like, and in some cases will indeed be, two distinct skills, in practical terms they often merge into one. For example, take an Act of Parliament, which, among other things, prohibits the possession of obscene articles for publication for gain, except where publication is
‘justified as being for the public good on the ground that it is in the interests of science, literature, art or learning, or of other objects of general concern.’
Clearly this exception would apply to the depiction of nudity in classical art and to the publication of photographs of human genitals in medical textbooks. But what about cases involving articles which are plainly obscene on any sensible meaning of the word? Can the defence argue that such articles are nevertheless lawful because they help some people to release their frustrations through sexual fantasies, and that the consequent reduction in the number of sexual offences is plainly the object of general concern?
A linguistically perceptive response to this question would proceed on the following lines. If the exception applies to any ‘objects of general concern,’ why did Parliament specify the preceding categories (namely ‘science, literature, art or learning’)? Is it not reasonable therefore, to interpret the words ‘other objects of general concern’ as being limited to other things of the same kind as those, which are specified? Thus the argument for the defence does not justify the application of the exception.
Furthermore, and quite apart from purely linguistic considerations, when the content of the argument for the defence is analysed, it becomes plain that what is really being claimed is that the availability of obscene articles can be justified simply on the ground that they are obscene. It is difficult to see how anyone could reasonably regard this as a credible interpretation of an Act of Parliament, which was passed in order to subject obscene articles to strict controls.
As a final point on the need for good language skills, it may be useful to consider a classical legal anecdote. The story is told of a judge who, having listened patiently to an advocate who was making a long and learned submission, said, “Well, Mr Smith, having listened to all you have had to say, I must confess that I am none the wiser.’ ‘Perhaps not, my Lord,’ replied the advocate, ‘but at least your Lordship is better informed.’ Whether or not you find this funny may be a good indicator of whether you are sufficiently sensitive to nuances of meanings to be likely to succeed as a law student.
No comments:
Post a Comment