Sat through 34 hours of lectures to find a lecturer on youtube 2 weeks out from finals that explains every lecture in 8 minutes... Thank you for saving my finals grades
Fantastic explanation. I was struggling with understanding the book: Understanding Jurisprudence by Wacks, so I resorted to the internet. Glad I stumbled across your videos. Thanks!
Which model does positivism and natural law fall into ? Positivism falls into the value consensus model Realism falls into the value antagonism Model Which model does natural law fall into ?
The fundamental reason why the Maori asked for the British to formalise their protection was bc the tikanga tapu laws were no longer effective as the settlors were not under tapu law so walking over a grave didn't bring the retribution upon the individual or their Whanau as the Maori Hapu were told to believe by the Rangatira. Rangatira realised that soon all lawlessness would erupt in their own Iwi and Rangitira would lose their position and potentially their lives at the hand of their own people.
Legal Realism is Agency > Value, because your being picked on for what prosecution can do, and not being in the "in crowd", first they prosecute you for something small and then expect you to join them. It's against your Value and doesn't recognize it, unless.
Law is nothing more than raw political power. Rules, principles, and conceptions don't really matter. Debate and flashy rhetoric are mere theatre. Judicial opinions are outcome based, and the law is what the judge says it is.
Even god decisions evolve, theory rational laws are made to evolve and adapt trough time in the practical world, taking more time than a judging mistake pointed from questionable points of view although believe that the starting point of goodwill or bad-will decision will always mark the future scale of human existence
Sat through 34 hours of lectures to find a lecturer on youtube 2 weeks out from finals that explains every lecture in 8 minutes... Thank you for saving my finals grades
I'm taking this course in 2019 and this guy is far better than the lecturer who taught this section! Thank you for your helpful videos :)
This guy is on point with his teaching.
Thanks. This video makes the understanding of jurisprudence quick and easy.
I have a exam in twenty minutes and this video have led me to grasp the concept. Respect!
I just love him. I have an exam in two days and he's lesson are really helpful. Wish he was my professor here in Italy
+Shamalia Mignucci Ah, to teach in Italy...perhaps one day Shamalia. It would have to be in Firenze thought. What a city!
Very concise and precise! thanks a bunch! i was desperately searching for a good explanation.
you have no idea how much this helped me thank you so much
Wait what was that at 6.01?
"Law is neither neutral nor value..." ??
rosey9cheeks Law is neither neutral nor value free.
Hate legal theory, philosophy just goes right over my head thanks for the vids help clear up a lot for me
Really enjoying these videos!
Glad to hear it Joshua!
This guy is awesome. Thanks
This guy is so awesome. I want him as my lecturer!!
Fantastic explanation. I was struggling with understanding the book: Understanding Jurisprudence by Wacks, so I resorted to the internet. Glad I stumbled across your videos. Thanks!
Wack's explanation although appears to be user friendly at first turns out to be convoluting AF... Suggest reading Jurisprudence By Brian Bix
You're brilliant professor, thank you.
+Moegsiena Ishmail Thanks for the positive feedback Moegsiena! Much appreciated.
This vid literally saved my life.
Which model does positivism and natural law fall into ?
Positivism falls into the value consensus model
Realism falls into the value antagonism Model
Which model does natural law fall into ?
Very informative lecture. Concise and understandable.
Glad you think so!
I want to know where you give class?
Martin Escobar VAcaflor University of Auckland, NZ
Martin Escobar VAcaflor jular besar
Great explanation! Thank you!
+Tracey Guilliams My pleasure. Glad you found it useful.
Very helpful indeed in understanding legal realism.
I'm glad you think so!
The truth is that the innocence or guilt of a person can depend on what the judge had for breakfast.
You say this as if it is your words! this is the an example of the idiosyncratic Branch.
THANK YOU
he is so spot on
Terima kasih banyak (Thank you so much in Indonesia Language).
Does he do anything on H L A Hart?
yeah could need some assistance here.
The fundamental reason why the Maori asked for the British to formalise their protection was bc the tikanga tapu laws were no longer effective as the settlors were not under tapu law so walking over a grave didn't bring the retribution upon the individual or their Whanau as the Maori Hapu were told to believe by the Rangatira.
Rangatira realised that soon all lawlessness would erupt in their own Iwi and Rangitira would lose their position and potentially their lives at the hand of their own people.
Wow this professor just saved my grade!
Happy to help Sydney! Best of luck with your studies.
Legal Realism is Agency > Value, because your being picked on for what prosecution can do, and not being in the "in crowd", first they prosecute you for something small and then expect you to join them. It's against your Value and doesn't recognize it, unless.
THANK U UR AMAZING
Law is nothing more than raw political power. Rules, principles, and conceptions don't really matter. Debate and flashy rhetoric are mere theatre. Judicial opinions are outcome based, and the law is what the judge says it is.
STUPID SNEEZE AT @6:01
yea. u knw who i talking?
Even god decisions evolve, theory rational laws are made to evolve and adapt trough time in the practical world, taking more time than a judging mistake pointed from questionable points of view although believe that the starting point of goodwill or bad-will decision will always mark the future scale of human existence
know this is highly inappropriate i wish he was my jurisprudence lecturer instead of that lazy blob we have that no one attends his class
Hi Mohsen, some words came out as if they were facts, even though they were just your interpretation.
Fair critique! I try to avoid presenting interpretation as fact but sometimes the moment gets the better of me.
This video helped me a lot! But stupid people in the background wont stop coughing and sneezing
dwl ok well good luck tomorrow