Lawyers thinking tends to be rather narrow: we either have a rule telling us which arguments are central to the discussion, or we quickly construct a rule in our heads as to which argument(s) is/are central. Given that (made-up) rule, we tend to ignore everything that is not encompassed by it: life is reduced to a list of relatively simple and straightforward criteria that need to be addressed. I think it would promote the general climate of discussion between lawyers and non-lawyers if both parties tried to be aware of this limitation in legal thinking. If its outside the rule, its not legally relevant: that doesnt mean its irrelevant according to some other standard, but its not legally relevant.
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:41:48 +0000