Hi, I need help with essay on Hart's Thesis and MOMJ Perspective on Law Society. Paper must be at least 750 words. Please, no plagiarized work!Download file to see previous pages... Hart (1994) furthe

Hi, I need help with essay on Hart's Thesis and MOMJ Perspective on Law Society. Paper must be at least 750 words. Please, no plagiarized work!

Hart (1994) further argues that because the society accepts the legal rule as the standards of judging, criticizing and even giving punishments when some members deviate, the legal rules are obligatory and all the members of the society must comply with their provisions. According to Hart, it is important for the societies to establish reflective attitudes based on common standards to ensure conformity with regard to the application of the law. In this context, Hart’s thesis that the validity of laws depend on the sources as opposed rather than its merits is significantly crucial since it can be used to solve the potential conflicts between successive norms and the concurrent rules that tend to affect various legal systems. Consequently this perspective considerably enhances the legal understanding of law making processes. Hart’s thesis is also based on the assumption that not every member of the society is expected to accept the stipulated rules as the only criteria of legal validity but rather most of the ordinary people do not often fully comprehend the legal structures as well as how to measure their validity(Hart, 1994). On the other hand, the myth of moral justice postulated by Rosenbaum suggests that the current legal system is not morally ideal because it is so formulaic and rigid that it is almost impossible to achieve just outcomes from it. In “the myth of moral justice,” Rosenbaum disagrees with Hart’s theses as well as the theories of legal positivism’s reasoning that the validity of the legal processes is always a function of the particular social systems that regulate the behavior of the members of the society. According to Rosenbaum (2004), not all of the legal cases in the courts can be simply addressed through monetary compensation and punishments as seen in most of the current legal systems. This is because sometimes the victims may only need restorative and spiritual remedies to help them achieve justice. For example, victims of injustices should be given opportunity to express their feelings and get consolations or apologies from the parties that may have offended them. Instead most of the current legal systems are filled with moral complexities that often make it impossible to deliver justice to the members of the society. For instance most people continue to lie under the oath and this has resulted in the loss of faith and frustrations with our current justice and legal systems. Rosenbaum also challenges the contemporary training of layers particularly with regard to ethics. For example he argues from law schools to their places of career practice, lawyers are always filled with the concepts of unemotional evaluation of facts and details of cases with little regard to moral sense. Throughout the book, there are also a number of instances in which relatively simple cases ended with outcomes that are legally justified and yet are not making any moral sense. Some of the notable cases included the famous Nuremberg trials which ended in the acquittal of all the police officers who were charged with murder.