A.V Lundstedt- Scandinavian Realist

Brief Historical Background of A V Lundstedt Lundstedt (1882-1955) was a Swedish jurist and a proponent of Norse Legal Realism. He was also a professor of Law at the University of Uppsala in Sweden, from 1914 to 1952. Similarly to Haegerstrom, Ross and Olivercrona, he resisted the exposition of rights as metaphysical entities- contending that realistic judicial analysis should dispense with much(prenominal) ideology. Beyond being a prominent tort truth scholar, Lundstedt was also a social democratic member of the Swedish Parliament from 1929 to 1948.The body of his work can be visualiseed as an attempt to revolutionise the field of jurisprudence by transforming the law into a catalyst for political and social reform. Legal Knowledge and Legal Science Lundstedt is regarded by some as the most extreme and buoyant of the Norse realists. Lundstedt advocated that legal science should be conceived of as a real science, and to that end he rejected traditional legal science. His main o bjection to traditional legal science was that it employed metaphysical concepts inter alia, right, obligation, wrong doing and guilt.The focal point of his theoretical work was his sustained attacks towards what he termed the mode of justice. The rule of justice is the resign of phrase utilise by Lundstedt to de none traditional legal science, (derived from the traditional method of natural law), which holds that human beings are persons endowed with legal rights and duties. He was of the view that the term right and other metaphysical concepts employed by traditional legal science, were all illusory concepts that they were naught else but an intellectual play with expressions of whole step as if something real were designated thereby.Such concepts could not be used because they did not refer to any natural facts therefore the terms were devoid of any conceptual meaning. To cement the sphere of legal knowledge as a bonafide, real science legal science must be an empirica l science, which deals with social facts As a science jurisprudence legal science must be founded on experience, observation of facts and actual connections, and consequently be a natural science. He perceived that terms such(prenominal) as legal order and legal rules are not concepts but merely empty words that ought to be replaced with the term legal machinery.Legal machinery in this vain, is used to denote the psychological factors that determine human behaviour in relation to the use of legal vocabulary. He postulated that legal concepts such as right and duty are also bereft of any conceptual meaning and should be abandoned. Therefore, the legal vocabulary of traditional legal science is to be understood as a matter of using words and noises to cause the appropriate behaviour these words and noises are not concepts which could be said to be the reasons for human conduct.However Lundstedt conceded in his writings that, there are some realities that correspond to the concept of rights- namely, a position of advantage and safety, which is a result of the regular enforcement of certain legal rules and the psychological effects this had on the minds of people. In short, because the courts come to ones aid when a person alleges an infringement of a right, a layman is left hand with the psychological impression that his/her right is real because the courts have sought to address the wrong they were done.As discussed earlier, the term right does not designate anything observable, tangible nor anything capable of sensational perception. One cannot show you their right- and thus Lundstedt argued that a right is a fictitious entity. It must be borne in mind that Lundstedts line of reasoning is not what is understood by the term rights when referenced in legal science nor in the public mind, and therefore he argued that it would be better still, to do remote with the concept altogether.This stringent scientific attitude of Lundstedts , was committed to replacing the magical/metaphysical terms associated with traditional legal science scholarship, with scientific concepts having a basis in reality. In Lundstedts view, the scientific concepts were essentially empirical laws, stating the causal relations between the legal words and their effects upon human behaviour. The system of Social Welfare Lundstedt was of the view that there was no objective means to define the requirements of justice, and that invocations of justice cloaked purely subjective preferences i. e. he divergences of opinion concerning whether the wipeout penalty is just. Alternatively he argued that such invocations of justice were representations of unacceptable metaphysical claims i. e. in ancient Rome it was believed that the Emperor was the chosen emissary of God. For this reason, Lundstedt endeavoured to replace the method of justice with the method of social welfare, in solving legal problems. The method of social welfare is premised on social aims- that the aim of all legal activities such as judicial decision making, and the promulgation of legislation should be geared toward benefiting mankind.He emphasised that his notion of social welfare was not a moral or philosophical principle, but that the term should be understood in a descriptive sense representing the actual valuations of people in society. He ardently denied that his method of social welfare was in anyway way related to the ethical theories of Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill, as his theory was criticised as just another adaptation of utilitarianism. For example, Lundstedt stated the purpose of punishment is not for revenge, but to maintain a system that is for the benefit of all i. . a system in which a footpad is held liable for his damages. Were the purpose of the law to be justice, he opined that it could be argued that theft should be condoned if the thief is considerably worse off than the person(s) from whom he stole. (An fable of why he rejected the concept of justi ce) Lundstedt argued that the method of social welfare is a scientific approach, as it is premised upon the reality of human needs and wants and that the aforenamed are facts to be known by science.Lundstedt believed that his method should inform and shape legislation as it was centred on the objective study of social conditions, and on the practical effects and capabilities of the law in improving society for all its members. In furthering his views that the law should be used as a vehicle for social reform, Lundstedt used this method as a line of argument against a proposed prohibition law in the 1920s. He was of the view that such a ban would harm the public regard as for the law.In the 1930s he once again used his method to advocate for the decriminalization of homosexuality, which was quite a radical stance to take, taking into account the measure in which he lived. Lundstedts arguments have been criticised as being not altogether convincing, as he failed to prove that people generally and truly back up the values he advocated. Moreover, he did not provide a measure for those situations in which the valuations of people differed greatly. 1 .J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Norse Legal Realism (2005) 2 . J-O Sundell, Vilhelm Lundstedt- A Biographical Sketch , (2010) 3 . Supra 4 . J Strang, Two Generations of Scandinavian Legal Realists,(2009) 5 . T Spaak, Naturalism in Scandinavian and American Realism Similarities and Differences, 6 . Supra 7 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism (2005) 8 . M Freeman & P Mindus, The legacy of John Austins Jurisprudence 9 . A. V. Lundstedt, Legal Thinking Revised, (1956) 10 . M Freeman & P Mindus, The Legacy of John Austins Jurisprudence, 11 . Supra 12 . M Freeman & P Mindus, The Legacy of John Austins Jurisprudence 13 . J Strang, Two Generations of Scandinavian Realists,(2009) 14 . Supra 15 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism, (2005) 16 . Supra 17 . Some believe tha t it is the retribution of society that justifies the expiry penalty, whilst others aver that it is not for mortals to deprive the killer of life.Whichever side of the coin you fall, your perception as to what is just and moreover whether the death penalty is or is not an shabbiness depends heavily upon your feelings and values concerning human life. 18 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism, (2005) 19 . Supra 20 . J Strang, Two Generations of Scandinavian Realists,(2009) 21 . Supra 22 . J-O Sundell, Vilhelm Lundstedt- A Biographical Sketch , (2010) 23 . J Bjarup, The Philosophy of Scandinavian Legal Realism, (2005)