Is it a logical fallacy to use a prior case as a basis for one’s verdict, despite the prior case not being reasonably conclusive?
More specifically, I’m anaylizing this passges: “The father argued that, because he did not have sex voluntarily with the mother, he was not liable for child support. The court disposed of the argument, comparing it to the arguments made in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S.:” http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/paternity/99jan1.shtml
It would seem like it’s almost a case of circular logic, but I don’t think it quite matches that definition. So is this a logical fallacy?
In what way is the cited case not conclusive? The law is that a mother’s misrepresentations cannot legally affect a child’s rights. The child’s right has been determined to be support in proportion to the parents’ means. Period. Shifting money from the mother to the father because of her tortious behavior would interfere with that right, and the child has done nothing to incur such a punishment. Furthermore, that is not the only case cited in the decision, just the one which the judge mentions with regard to a single issue.
Here’s a better example: “Because something has always been this way, it must be right”
I guess that’s what I’m wondering in a nut-shell. Is that a logical fallacy, assuming that something is correct because of a prior example, which may arguably have not been correct?
Here is the short answer. Legal reasoning has little to do with formal logic. There is a legal rule that says that courts should follow precedent. The rule is called stare decisis. It has less to do with logic than efficiency (saves having to think through every issue in every case), predictability (the rules that apply tend to stay the same under this system), and fairness (the same rule applies to everyone, instead of an ad hoc rule being invented for each case).
Without the stare decisis rule the argument runs like this: We did it this way before, therefore we will do it this way again. Which is a non-sequitur.
This logic was parodied in the short story, The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson.
If the precedent is wrong, and the precedent is binding, then the lower court is (theoretically) required to follow it. When the party gets an adverse ruling, that party can appeal, and convince the court that issued the precedent to change its mind.
Ah. That is much clearer. Yes, without stare decesis, citing the precedents of higher courts becomes Appeal to Authority, a classic fallacy. I’m not sure that it’s a non sequitur, although I agree that it isn’t a proper deduction.
An unjust decision or precedent) must be reversed by the same court that issued it, or a higher one. Yes, that happens all the time, and even the SCOTUS has done it a few times.
Wait a minute. An appeal to authority is only a fallacy if the authority is not an expert or if there is disagreement on experts on a certain issue. For example, claiming that David Letterman supports stem cell research, so stem cell research MUST be good is a fallacious argument. However, stating that higher courts have reached such and such decision, so that decision MUST be lawful, is NOT an appeal to authority because the higher court can reasonably be judged to be an expert on matters of law.
I think what the OP is looking for is an appeal to common practice, appeal to tradition, possibly an appeal to popularity. I’m not sure if it’s a non sequitur, because those usually involve affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent, or some nonsense turn of phrase.
I know what it means, but I think the argument DOES follow a logical path. The diagram of the argument could go something like, [A] Case law says that fathers described in the OP don’t have to pay child support. ** I am such a father. [C] Therefore, case law says I should not have to pay child support. That does not strike me as a non-sequitur. One can dispute the application of the case law, but the conclusion reasonably follows from the premises.
I would agree if it was a non sequitur if the lawyer was trying to argue:[A] Case law says that fathers described in the OP don’t have to pay child support; ** I am such a father; [C] Therefore, judges hate women with children. That conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Heck, you may be right. I guess I was thinking more of the informal (broader) usage of the term. It still seems to me that the conclusion, “the court must do X,” does not follow from the premise, “Case law says to do X” The rule of stare decisis is required to make the logic work, and stare decisis is not a rule of logic. In fact, it doesn’t apply in civil law jurisdictions. But this broad usage of the term non-sequitur (conclusion does not follow from the premises) probably applies equally to all logical fallacies, right? As such, it is not a helpful label (in its broad sense). Anyway, I bow to greater minds on the matter.