Legal reasoning can be studied from several points of view. It is for instance possible to look at the brain processes of somebody engaged in legal reasoning. This approach may be interesting for neurologists, but has as yet little relevance for lawyers. Another approach would be to investigate which mental processes are involved in the process of reaching a decision in a legal case (Hogarth, 1971; Crombag et al., 1977; Koppen and de Keijser, 2002). A third way to look at legal reasoning is to study the argumentation by means of which a legal conclusion is supported. It is not necessarily so that the arguments adduced for a legal conclusion reflect the mental process through which this conclusion was reached. In this connection it is customary to distinguish between the context of discovery and the context of justification. The context of discovery deals with the psychological side of legal reasoning, while the context of justification concerns the justification of legal conclusions. Often the context of justification is identified with the arguments produced for a conclusion, but these arguments can also have a function other than to justify their conclusions, namely to make a legal decision acceptable for the parties involved (Witteveen, 1988).
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.