# data[].attributes.body
2 theories of adjudication:

Orthodox - Need to abide to legislature to perform judgement. Rigid.

Heretical - Not so rigid. Judgement not solely based on law. Takes into account other forces at play

3 schools of thought:

1. common law tradition

Views/trends based on the common law system. (The doctrine of judicial precedence where a judge's decision is in accordance with previous cases that have been decided)

A judgment is a declaration by a judge of the moral consent of a community. (legal consensus by the legal community)

Courts follow newest cases as it reflects current developments in society. A learned decision can be made with agreement of the legal community.

2. Formalism

Contrary to common law

Law is proper and only from those with a mandate. Judge can be good at making decisions and justice and etc. but is still obliged to follow what was made.

Jeremy Bentham: Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. For the greater good.

John Austin - Positivist: Whatever the authorities decide we have to follow. If you can get assent from parliament, you have to follow it

3. Skepticism

American Legal Realism

E.g Judges follow their own judgment or the jury (in that particular case). Judges have their own “hunch” for what is right.

Best is likely the common law system with certain tweaks as to better consider other factors at play when giving a judgement. Cannot be too rigid nor too liberal. Only can be had when judiciary is entirely free of governmental influence.

# data[].attributes.headline
Theory of Adjudication - Lee Hui Yi (A176568)

# data[].attributes.subject
Theory of Adjudication - Lee Hui Yi (A176568)

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of Adjudication
2 pandangan - Orthodox and Heretical

Orthodox
Hakim tidak boleh berlebih-lebih, based on undang-undang

Heretical
Tidak boleh guna undang-undang
Need use fakta luar undang-undang

Model lihat sesuatu institusi kehakiman

Model 1 - the common law tradition
Based on common law
Precedent duluan kehakiman
Berdasarkan kes-kes sebelum ni
Pengisytiharan moral consensus community
Refer to latest case

Model 2 - Formalism
Law properly so-called
Jeremy Bentham - for the greater good
Sangat rigid
Tidak ambil kira faktor ekonomi, sosial

Model 3 - Skepticism
Amerika legal realism
Different with above 2 model
out of legal reasoning
Individu oriented, ambil kira faktor lain

# data[].attributes.headline
Siti Fatimah Azzahra Binti Safe'e (A175111)

# data[].attributes.subject
Siti Fatimah Azzahra Binti Safe'e (A175111)

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of adjudication by Dr Mizan
Originally, 2 thoughts

Orthodox - Hakim actually in other words tk leh berlebih2. buat kehakiman based on the law, bound by what the law said.

Heretical - more to, to decide a case, kena lihat pd other factors outside from the law, not to look what the law said.

When developed, Have 3 models which is more to Melihat kpd institusi kehakiman
1) The common law tradition - pdgn or aliran pemikiran based on common law (judicial precedent) tp tk rujuk statute..
Fungsi kehakiman, is a declaration made by the judge. It is the moral consensus of a legal community (of that time). Ikut apa yg paling latest. Lbh menggambarkan kehendak dan keperluan masyarakat ketika itu. Melihat Hakim as if they discover the law. Oh this is the standard now based on the arguments, law etc.

2) formalism - opposite of common law as the Hakim is quite bebas as long as it is based on the moral standard approved or consensus by the legal community.

More to law is actually what :properly so called' hny recognize law which is properly enacted. Hakim cannot pandai2 buat...kena ikut what has been enacted by the law.

Jeremy Bentham : utilitarianism
For the greater good. Majoriti (law has been enacted and voted by majority of legislators which can be said as for the greater good for the community or public)
Kes juzaili, minoriti. Berpihak padal MAIN.

John Austin : what the law said must be obeyed as it has been made by the sovereign. If berlaku A, B, C = X, so if in the case there are ABC then the decision will be X.

3) Skepticism - model y dtg Dr American legal realism. tolak the other 2 models
Hakim mcm tk terikat dgn apa2. Ikut apa yg dia rasa betul. 'Judges hunches'.

Tk leh hny bergantung pd legal reasoning, or else tk tepat. Klau nak buat kehakiman, hakim kena step out of legal reasoning. If not, it won't be fair. Hakim kena tgk benda lain, faktor2 ekonomi, social, etc.

...
The modern debate there is percanggahan antara dworkin and Hart.
A pemikir named Bodenheimer pecah 5

# data[].attributes.headline
Theory of adjudication (Mohamad Syazwan bin Roslan A174240)

# data[].attributes.subject
Theory of adjudication (Mohamad Syazwan bin Roslan A174240)

# data[].attributes.headline
AINNUR ANNISA BINTI ABDUL RAZAK (A176977)

# data[].attributes.subject
AINNUR ANNISA BINTI ABDUL RAZAK (A176977)

# data[].attributes.body
Dua bentuk pemikiran awal.

1. Orthodox

1. Hakim tidak boleh berlebih

2. Mesti membuat penghakiman berdasarkan kepada apa yang telah ada dalam undang-undang

3. Sebab telah terikat dan tertera dalam peruntukan undang-undang

2. Heretical

1. Terbalik dari Orthodox

2. Sebenarnya sekiranya Hakim mahu menghakim kan satu kes, hakim tidak boleh menggunakan undang-undang

3. Sepatutnya ikut faktor lain. Luar undang-undang

4. Perkara lain untuk menjurus hakim mencapai satu penghakiman

Kemudian berkembang. Banyak school of thoughts/model melihat kepada sesuatu institut kehakiman/ hakim

1. The common law tradition

1. Adalah satu pandangangan/aliran yang berasaskan common law

2. Dulu kehakiman - judicial precedent - keputusan hakim berdasarkan kes sebelum ni

3. Tak rujuk kepada statut

4. Satu penghakiman - 1 deklarasi - isytihar sesuatu - isytihar apa? - isytihar persetujuan moral suatu legal community

2. Model 2 - formalism

1. Sebenarnya adalah lawan dgn common law - hakim agak bebas. Bolh bt kputusan. As long as kputusn tu patuh standard moral legal community

2. Adalah bersifat uu sbnrnya adalah apa yg properly so-called - dia hanya iktiraf uu yg proper. Properly passed. Tlh di keluar dr org yg mmpunyai mandat unkt bt uu - parlimen - ydpa

3. Hakim mana bolh sukati bt apa yg ida rasa btul

4. Mesti ikut apa yg telah dinyatakan dalam sistem.

5. Jeremy bentham - knp dia jatuh dalam no 2 - utilitarianism - apa yg baik untuk majority - hakim x boleh sesuka hati bt dia

6. Kes juzaili - kes minority - federal ct - pihak kepada majlis agama negeri. Mliht greater numbr of people.

7. Jeremy bentham sbb bila nk bt uu, kena passed secara majority. So uu formal yg dibt tu ialah majority

8. John austin - merujuk kpd majority pnya happiness. Positivist -apa yg dibuat pemerintah bt, ken follow - sbb dh passed dari

3.  Dtg dr american legal realism

1. Tolak 2 yang atas

2. Judges hunches

3. Scepticism - bukan tgok legal reasoning - tengok other factors - social,economic,political - baru betul penghakimannya

# data[].attributes.headline
Theory of adjudication (Nur Atria Hadfina Binti Hakim) A176091

# data[].attributes.subject
Theory of adjudication (Nur Atria Hadfina Binti Hakim) A176091

# data[].attributes.headline
The theory of adjuication- Ee Gen You (A176456)

# data[].attributes.subject
The theory of adjuication- Ee Gen You (A176456)

# data[].attributes.body
Orthodox View
-The judge must not decide the case unless permitted by law.

Heretical
-The judgement held by the judge is the law, and is just and fair.

The three school of thoughts
1)Common law tradition
-based on the judicial precedent
-judge is to declare moral consensus of the legal community

2) Formalism
-Follow the legislated law which will serve the benefits of the majority society

3) Sceptisicm
-should consider all the factors on hand to give the best judgement

# data[].attributes.headline
Nur Amira Batrisyia Mohamad Rafi(A174439)

# data[].attributes.subject
Nur Amira Batrisyia Mohamad Rafi(A174439)

# data[].attributes.headline
Aida Syuhadah binti Ahmad Suhaimi (A173644)

# data[].attributes.subject
Aida Syuhadah binti Ahmad Suhaimi (A173644)

# data[].attributes.headline
Group: Bad Man                                                               1. Nureen Edriana binti Zulkepeli (A176518)          2. Muhammad Naqib Aiman bin Mohd Faiza (A174874)                                                                         3. Nawal binti Mohamad Amin (A176619)               4. Muhammad Zafran Shamil bin Zulkifili (A177352)                                                                         5. Nur Batrisyia Hannani binti Abd Rahman (A174074)                                                                         6. Foo Tzen Fung (A175616)                                        7. Nur Atria Hadfina binti Hakim (A176091)            8. Ahmad Nur Faid Afiq bin Aziz (A174898)           9. Donovan Choong En Jie (A173303)                   10. Khoo Khai Hau (A175707)                                     

# data[].attributes.subject
Group: Bad Man                                                               1. Nureen Edriana binti Zulkepeli (A176518)          2. Muhammad Naqib Aiman bin Mohd Faiza (A174874)                                                                         3. Nawal binti Mohamad Amin (A176619)               4. Muhammad Zafran Shamil bin Zulkifili (A177352)                                                                         5. Nur Batrisyia Hannani binti Abd Rahman (A174074)                                                                         6. Foo Tzen Fung (A175616)                                        7. Nur Atria Hadfina binti Hakim (A176091)            8. Ahmad Nur Faid Afiq bin Aziz (A174898)           9. Donovan Choong En Jie (A173303)                   10. Khoo Khai Hau (A175707)                                     

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.canva.com/design/DAE1sbkEDjk/share/preview?token=zYFyh0Wcq8y6GnOVNBKbFQ&role=EDITOR&utm_content=DAE1sbkEDjk&utm_campaign=designshare&utm_medium=link&utm_source=sharebutton

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of Adjudication

Secara asas 2 bentuk pemikiran awal

-        Orthodox

o   Hakim tak boleh lebih lebih

o   Buat perhakiman apa yang ada dalam peruntukan UU

-        Heretical

o   Kalau nak menghakim, hakim tidak boleh guna UU

o   Kena lihat factor luar selain UU

Berpecah kepada 3 model

-        Common law tradition

o   Berdasarkan kepada system common law

o   Suatu hakiman itu satu deklarasi iaitu persetujuan satu moral legal community

o   Akan tengok penghakiman dahulu

o   Judicial decision yang lama v baru (baru prevails)

§  Mengikut kehendak masyarakat

-        Formalism

o   Berlawan dengan common law

o   UU adalah law properly so-called

§  Mengiktiraf UU yang properly passed

§  Hakim bukan orang yang boleh mengiktiraf

o   Jeremy Bentham Utilitirianism
- majority prevails over minority

o   John Austin

-        Skepticism (American Legal Realism)

o   Judges hunches

o   Tolak dua dua

o   Kalau hakim nak buat keputusan tak boleh bergantung pada legal reasoning sahaja

§ Melihat kepada faktor lain seperti ekonomi and social

# data[].attributes.body
Adjudication (2)
- orthodox - pndgn: hakim x boleh lebih2 - buat phakiman dgn apa yg ad di undang2
- pndgn hearthical : kalau nk hakimi,, hakim x huna undang2, tp sblknya hakimi guna selain undang2
Model2:
1. The commom law tradition- doktrin duluan kehakiman- keputusan hakim berdasarkan keputuaan kes sblmnya - berdasarkan adat yang telah disepakati bersama-sama
2. Formalism - berlawanan dgn common law - bersifat undang2 itu properly so-called (law yg mmg proper - yang termaktub spt parlimen)
Jeremy Bentem (dia setuju): utilitarism (focusa kpd kebaikan majority) greater good for greater number of people - sbb cth undang2 dari parlimen, yg sudah mendapat majority
John Austin: psotivism - siapa shj yg dh jd undang2, so kena patuh (berlawanan dgn natural law)
Formalism: jika A+B+C=X
3. Skepticism - hakim step out of legal reasoning spt faktor ekonomi, sosial
cth: american legal realism: US sistem: buat penghakiman ikut hunches (firasat)

Modern Devate between Dworkin and Hart
Bodenheimer

# data[].attributes.headline
ANBAHNANTHY A/P G KRISHNAN MURTHY (A175412)

# data[].attributes.subject
ANBAHNANTHY A/P G KRISHNAN MURTHY (A175412)

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of Adjudication

Asasnya, berkenaan teori of adjudication, ia terbahagi kepada 2 iaitu Orthodox dan heretical.

Orthodox-pandangannya menyatakan hakim tak boleh berlebih-lebih. Kena laksanakan apa yang tertera dalam peruntukan undang-undang.

Heretical-kalau nak mencapai sesuatu keputusan, Hakim x boleh gunakan undang-undnag. Dia perlu melihat luar daripada kotak.

Terdapat 3 model yang melihat kepada peranan hakim

1) the common law tradition. Merupakan satu pandangan yang berfokus kepada prinsip common law. Penghakiman dibuat berdasarkan kepada dokt. Perhakiman meruepakan satu perisytiharan. Apa yang dhakim isutiharkan adalah … . hakim biasa buat keputusan, dia rujuk kepada penghakiman terdahulu. Dia akan minta kes yang latest. Menggambarkan moral consensus of legal community. menggambarkan hakim seolah2 discover undang-undnag.

2) Formalism. Merujuk kepada ‘law is properly so called’. Dia hanya akan mengiktiraf . dia menti mengikut apa yang ternyata dalam undang-undang itu. Dikaitkan dengan prinsip Jeremy Bentham-Hak minoriti adalah tidak penting. Kepentingan majoriti adalah penting. John Austin. Sebagai hakim, apabila membuat penghakiman, perlu bergabtung kepada apa yang terdapat dalam undang-undang.

3) model ketiga datang daripada American legal realism. Dari segi penghakiman, hakim tak terikat kepada undang-undang. Juri buat apa yang dia rasa betul. Hakim tak rujuk doktrin duluan penghakiman. Judges hunches- hakim bergantung kepada pertimbangan hakim itu sendiri. Scepticism tolak pandangan orthodox. Penghakiman tak boleh ikut legal reasoning. Kalau nak buat penghakiman perlu lihat benda lain seprti ekonomi, sosial. Penghakiman bukan berdasarkan judicial decision. American will look at other factors such as economics, politics and social.

# data[].attributes.body
2 jenis

1.      Orthodox

-Hakim xblh berlebih mesti buat penghakiman berdasarkan u2

-Terikat dgn U2, kandungan U

2.      Heritical

-        Bg mencapaikan satu keputusan perlu melihat kpd luar faktor selain u2

3 model (melihat kepada institiusi kehakiman)

1.      Common law tradition

-        Pandangan, aliran pemikiran common law (doktrin duluan kehakiman- merujuk kpd kehakiman)

-        Penghakiman adalah satu deklarasi

-        Akan rujuk statue, tp DDK privilege

-        Bersandarkan consensus moral masy

2.      Formalism

-Law is properly so-called ( hanya mengiktiraf U2 yg termaktud)

- mesti ikut  U2

- Jeremy bentham (Utilitarianism)

- Keburukan : Bersandarkan consensus moral masyarakat

3.      American Legal Realism

-        Judges Hunches ( ikut firasat)

-        Scepticim ( Hakim xblh hny legal reasoning, hakim perlu step out from legal reasoning. Cth; lihat faktor ekonomi,sosial, political dll)

-        Nt really must be backed by authority

-        Keburukan : Too wide, bias

# data[].attributes.body
Asas teori adjudication:

1)orthodox
hakim tk boleh berlebih2, penghakiman berdasarkn apa yg telah ada dlm uu. Terikat dgn apa yg dh trtera dlm uu

2)heretical
utk mencapai sstu keputusan, hakim tkleh guna uu. Kne tgk faktor lain luar uu.
Perkembagan

Model institusi penghakiman
1) the common law tradition

Sifat: judicial precedent, keputusan hakim berdasarkn kes2 sebelumnya, the morel consents of legal community at that time (judged persuaded ikut apa plg latest, menggambarkan kehendak masyarakat yg latest), this is the standard now, hakim agk bebas bersandarkan nilai moral komuniti, flexible

2)formalism

Law properly so-called, trkeluar drpd mandat, hakim mesti ikut apa yg telah ada dlm sistem, apa yg telah menjadi uu, jeremy bentham, uu adalah persetujuan majority (2/3 dlm senat), berpegang pd uu yg ada, rigid

3) american legal realism

Judges hunches (pertimbangan sendiri, firasat)  scepticism, ikut citarasa sendiri

Bodenheimer
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

(Yg 3 tu, tp pecahkn in detail)

# data[].attributes.headline
Theory of Adjudication [ Rashekka - A175759] 

# data[].attributes.subject
Theory of Adjudication [ Rashekka - A175759] 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Society - acceptance of society untuk terima cross-dress. contoh Kak Vee (famous for emceeing while cross dressing)
2. Individual - suffer Gender Identity Disorder (psychological distress)
3. Human rights - penerimaan Article 5 - to live with dignity (to go to work while cross-dressed)

# data[].attributes.body
a) orthodox
- Hakim menulis penghakiman bergantung kepada undang-undang yang sedia ada dan ia terikat dgn peruntukkan undang-undang

b) heretical
- hakim tidak boleh melihat faktor yang tidak diperuntuk dalam undang-undang untuk mecapaikan satu konklusi yang lain.

3 model ikut perkembangan masa:
a) The common law tradition
- merujuk penghakiman yang terdahulu & statute yg sedia ada
- penghakiman yang dibuat akan berdasarkan “moral consensus”

b) Formalism (lawan dgn common law tradition)
- John Austin berpendapat bahawa masyarakat perlu mengikuti undang-undang yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak berkuasa.

c) Scepticism
- sekiranya hakim ingin membuat keputusan, tidak boleh bergantung kpd legalism. Ini bermaksud mereka kena tengok benda lain seperti faktor-faktor lain daripada undang-undang, contohnya faktor ekonomi.

# data[].attributes.body
SUMITTHAA A/P SANMUGAM – A176389

Theory of Adjudication

-        In the early ages, there were only 2 concepts namely, orthodox and heretical

Ø  The difference is that the individual choosing the concept of orthodox, says that judges cannot go over the boar. This means that they should analyse and decide the case based on the law.

Ø  On the other hand, the individual choosing the concept of heretical is of the view that the judge should not apply the law only, but should take into consideration other aspects outside the law to settle the dispute.

-        A few models that came into existence can be used to determine the roles of the court

1.     Common law tradition

– satu aliran berdasarkan sistem common law- the doctrine of judicial precedent - Judicial precedent means the process whereby judges follow previously decided cases where the facts are of sufficient similarity – this is more of to not referring to the statute but there is a reliance on the decided cases - kalau ikutkan model ini, kami itu sedang istiharkan the moral consensus of the legal community – that’s why in most situations, the latest cases are required – the latest decided cases shows that latest standard expected by the community – the legal community is sort of like represent the whole community at that time, to express standard expected by the community

2.     Formalism

- opposite of common law- in common law the judges make decision based in the moral consensus of the legal community- model kedua ini lebih bersifat kepada pematuhan law properly so-called – they state that the judge cannot make decision based on their own thought but should di it based on the law which has been properly enacted in the Parliament – cth kes juzaili (minoriti), dlm kes ini hakim berpihak kpd majlis agama Islam negeri, means the side for the majority of the people- this is based on Jeremy Bentham’s theory of utilitarianism which emphasizes that the need of majority is given priorities to – also referring to John Austin’s theory under positivism

In indonesia, the statutes are very thick and complete because in Indonesia, the judicial system requires the judges to make decision based on statutes

3.     American legal realism

– hakim seperti tidak terikat pd apa – ex: jury interprets the case on what he thinks right- the judges follow this – called judges hunches – Skepticism > tolak kedua-dua model di atas – according to this concept, the judge cannot make decision just based on legal reasoning- means have to consider other facts too – it’s a little like the heretical concept – in Malaysian system, the decision should always be backed up by statute or judicial precedent which means that our decision is based on legal reasoning – in my opinion, the judge might be bias towards one party

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of Adjudication

Orthodox

Hakim kena buat penghakiman berdasarkan apa yang termaktub dalam UU

Bound untuk ikut UU tersebut

Heretical

Dalam mencapai sesuatu keputusan, hakim tidak boleh mengikuti UU

Faktor-faktor lain perlu diambil kira iaitu faktor di luar UU

WUJUD 3 MODELS
1. COMMON LAW TRADITION

Aliran pemikiran berdasarkan Common Law

Bersandarkan ratio decidendi

2. FORMALISM

Jeremy Bentham: Theory of Utilitarianism: greater good for a number of people

John Austin: Jika wujud UU sebegitu, perlu diikuti

3. AMERICAN LEGAL REALISM

Skepticism dimana menolak kedua-dua models tersebut

Hakim tidak boleh bergantung kepada legal reasoning sahaja

Perlu mengambil kira faktor ekonomi/faktor sosial

# data[].attributes.body
Asas Teori Pertimbangan Kehakiman (Adjudication):

a) orthodox

- Hakim membuat penghakiman berdasarkan apa yang ada dalam undang-undang; terikat dgn peruntukkan undang-undang

b) heretical

- hakim tidak boleh guna undang-undang, melihat faktor luar undang-undang untuk mecapaikan sesuatu undang-undang.

3 model ikut perkembangan masa:

a) The common law tradition

- satu pandangan / aliran pemikiran berdasarkan common law

- judicial precedent

- merujuk kepada kes yang dahulu dan membuat penghakiman

- sesuatu penghakiman adalah suatu pengisytiharan

- persetujuan moral sesuatu legal community (moral consensus legal community)

- merujuk penghakiman yang terdahulu & statute yg sedia ada (tapi dia akan rujuk yg dahulu)

- melihat hakim sebagai discover undang-undang yang sedia ada; (masyarakat dah ada standard pada undang-undang yang sedia ada maka penghakiman yang diputuskan akan jadi latest approach / standard kepada masyarakat)

- penghakiman yang dibuat akan berdasarkan “moral consensus” yang disetuju oleh legal community

- mengikut consensus masyarakat

b) Formalism (lawan dgn common law tradition)

- Law properly so-called = mengiktiraf undang-undang yang telah dimaktub oleh parlimen & YDPA

- membuat keputusan mengikuti undang-undang yang sedia ada / prosedur

- Jeremy bentham = mengikuti majoriti yg mana undang-undang yang telah diluluskan oleh parlimen ada mengikut majority

- John Austin = Austin berpandangan bahawa masyarakat perlu mengikuti / mematuhi undang-undang yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak berkuasa.

- Sebagai seorang hakim perlu mengikut undang-undang

- Indonesia (akan follow statue)

c) American Legal Realism (dari US)

- ada jury, then enforce the decision of jury

- Judges Hunches = membuat penghakiman mengikut kebebasan sendiri

- scepticism = tolak model 1 & 2; berkait dgn herotical

- Hakim tak boleh hanya bergantung berdasarkan undang-undang, dan perlulah step out from the legal reasoning: factor ekonomi; social…

# data[].attributes.body
School of thoughts – 3 model kepada institusi kehakiman:

1.       Common law tradition
– satu pandangan/aliran pemikiran yang berdasarkan common law principles
– suatu deklarasi/pengisytiharan
– mengisyhtiharkan a moral consensus of the legal community
-Hakim membuat penghakiman mengikut doktrin judicial precedent
- Ex: case yang diputuskan pada masa kini (paling latest) adalah lebih 'persuaded' kerana ia 'reflects the moral consensus of the legal community at that time'.

2.       Formalism
– strict kerana hakim hanya boleh mengikut statut-statut semata-mata, hakim tidak boleh mengikut penghakiman kes terlebih dahulu seperti judicial precedent, inilah berbezanya kerana bagi model pertama s long as bersandarkan sesuatu nilai & standard moral, namun formalim tidak mengikut moral, kena mengikut statut-statut langsung

3.       Scepticism
- Datang dari American Legal Realism
– Mengikut sistem juri, hakim mengikut 'what they think is right'
– judges hunches
– sekiranya hakim ingin membuat keputusan, tidak boleh bergantung kpd legalism, 'they have to step out of the legal resoning',. Ini bermaksud mereka kena tengok benda lain seperti faktor-faktor lain daripada undang-undang, contohnya faktor ekonomi
– more to heretical
-Keburukan: bias dari jury

# data[].attributes.body
(a) orthodox
- the judge has to abide to the legislature

(b)heretical
-to achieve a reasonable judgement for a dispute, the judge has an outlook of the case to achieve his judgement

Model:-

(1) The common law tradition

-The judicial precedent established by the courts previously is used as a referral point by the current courts to draw opinions and interpretations from experienced judicial juries and authorities. This might open up an inspiration for new legislation or laws to be enacted to suit the current case.

- to achieve a moral consensus/ standard

(2) Formalism

- laws made for the greater good

(3) Skepticism

-taking in other relavant social factors into account to judge a case

LEHSHENI A/P KRISNAN
(A173306)

# data[].attributes.body
Dua bentuk pemikiran awal teori adjudikasi
Secara asasnya ada dua pandangan yang berbeza.

1. Orthodoks

Hakim tak boleh lebih-lebih; buat penghakian based on apa yang ada dalam uu

2. Heretical
Kalau nak menghakimi sesuatu kes. Hakim tak boleh rely on uu ja kena tengok faktor-faktor lain juga.

Wujudlah school of thoughts yang terbahagi kepada 3 model:
1. The common law tradition

Pandangan/aliran yg berdasarkan system common law. Apa tu common law? Doktrin duluan kehakiman. Judicial precedent – Keputusan hakim adalah mengikut kes-kes yang telah diputuskan.

Sesuatu penghakiman ialah deklarasi oleh seorang hakim mengenai persetujuan moral oleh sesebuah komuniti uu. (legal consensus by the legal community)

Ada statut yg telah dikeluarkan  pada 1960-an – selain tengok statut akan refer kes dulu. – mahkamah akan refer kes terkini kerana lagi menggambarkan keadaan komuniti terkini – dulu dgn lama mestilah ikut baru sebab lagi sesuai dgn komuniti semasa

hakim  boleh buat keputusan asalkan legal community setuju

2. Formalism
Berlawanan dgn common law

law properly so-called : uu yg proper sahaja daripada orang yg ada mandate
so, hakim mana boleh pandai2 buat keputusan haruslah ikut uu yang telah dibuat. tak boleh buat sesuka hati

Jeremy Bentham – Kita focus kepada majority – for the greater good
contoh kes Juzairy

John Austin – positivist: apa sahaja pihak berkuasa putuskan kita kena ikut
Kalau uu dah dapat assent dari parliament kena follow la

3. Scepticism
American Legal Realism
Hakim ikut penghakiman sendiri – ikut jury
Judges hunches – ikut firasat sendiri mana yg betul

Menolak kedua-dua jenis model

System kita selalu kena backup dgn authority + judicial decision + statute = legal reasoning

Tapi American system, NO .

Pandangan berkaitan dgn heretical, tak boleh bergantung kepada legal reasoning sahaja. Hakim kena step out of the legal reasoning and pertimbangkan faktor lain i.e faktor ekonomi, sosial etc

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of Adjudication

3 Models

1.       Common law – stare dicisis/ratio decidendi

2.       Formalism – law properly so called (undang-undang yang dipersetujui oleh sebahagian besar masyarakat) – properly pass (bentham and Austin)

3.       Skepticism – American Legal Realism - menolak model 1 dan 2

Bodenheimer – pecahan kepada 5 model (actually lebih specific daripada 3 model yang telah diperkenalkan)

# data[].attributes.headline
THEORY OF ADJUDICATION (KIRRTHANA - A174633)

# data[].attributes.subject
THEORY OF ADJUDICATION (KIRRTHANA - A174633)

# data[].attributes.body
Adjudication

3 Model is Applied

1. Common Law Tradition

Moral thinking declaration

Took consideration on the view of the community.

1. Formalism

Follows solely based on law that is expressly stated in statues or any relevant materials and sources.

1. Scepticism

Against Common Law Tradition and Formalism.

American legal realism.

Took into consideration on certain factors such as economics and social.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Common law tradition
- pandangan berdasarkan common law
- judicial precedent
- penghakiman ialah pengisytiharan (moral consensus)
- hakim bukan buat penghakiman sendiri

2.Formalism
- Hanya mengiktiraf undang-undang yang telah termaktub oleh badan pengeluar undang-undang cth Parlimen
- Perkaitan dengan Jeremy (Persetujuan Majoriti)
- Perkaitan John Austin (wajib patuh apa sahaja undang-undang yang dikeluarkan)
- Hakim hanya perlu mengikut undang-undang sahaja, tidak boleh memandai-mandai.

3. Sceptism
- Menolak model 1 dan model 2
- Heretical ( Hakim tak boleh bergantung kepada legal reasoning, hakim perlu step up melihat kepada faktor-faktor lain) cth Ekonomi, politik , sosial
- Judges Hunches

# data[].attributes.headline
Theory of adjudication (Nurulasmaa binti Zukeri, A174660) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Theory of adjudication (Nurulasmaa binti Zukeri, A174660) 

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of Adjudication (A176534)

# data[].attributes.headline
Theory of Adjudication- John Locke Your Hart

# data[].attributes.subject
Theory of Adjudication- John Locke Your Hart

# data[].attributes.body
Disediakan oleh: John Locke your Hart

1. Sharifah Aishah Alhabshi bt Syed Abdul Rahman (A173541)

2. Nur Yasmin bt Mubarrak (A174220)

3. Nur Huda Diyanah bt Amir Hamzah (A174357)

4. Elissanur Suraya bt Arnaz Yusry (A174895)

5. Wan Aishah bt Wan Fatul (A173689)

6. Calvin A/L Cherley (A173302)

7. Syarifah Raihanah Binti Sayed Abdul Mun'em (A173751)

8. Robiatul Adawiyah binti Saad (A174079)

9. Nur Aliya Natasha bt Mohd Nasir (A173961)

10. Nur Amira Batrisyia Mohamad Rafi (A174439)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Y4GBjCE0VsJBrIea1XfygCsAt1ExkToIwEev_q1Me-s/edit?usp=sharing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Theory of Adjudication_John Locke Your Hart 

# data[].attributes.body
Ahmad Iqbal bin Azman

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel kant
1.Hypothetical imperative
"If" concept- If you want to achieve something, you have to work for it

2.Categorical imperative
-universal
-cannot use another human lives for our own benefits
-kingdom of ends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Categorical Imperative (Sharifah Aishah Alhabshi A173541)

# data[].attributes.headline
Ainnur Annisa binti Abdul Razak (A176977)

# data[].attributes.subject
Ainnur Annisa binti Abdul Razak (A176977)

# data[].attributes.body
Jurist from Germany : Immanuel Kant

Hypothetical imperative :

IF - if you want, baru buat

- bound by morality so tak boleh pilih

Categorical imperative:

3 syarat:

1. Boleh diuniversalkan

- undang-undang tentang kanak-kanak ramai orang akan setuju tapi kalau kebebasan beragama atau arak tak semua akan setuju

2. Tak jadikan manusia sebagai bahan untuk capai tujuan

- kalau paksa orang untuk satu kepentingan lain tak boleh.

3. Kingdom of Ends:

- autonomy seseorang

- buat something untuk diri sendiri bukan untuk orang lain

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel kant
i. Hypothetical imperative
- with “ if' concept

ii. categorical imperative
1. universal law
2. treat human as ends
3. kingdom of ends.

# data[].attributes.body
Immanual Kant
Hypothetical imperative - If you want something, u must do it
Categorical Imperative - 3 formulations
1. Boleh universal
2. Not something that makes human to be used
3. Kingdom of ends

# data[].attributes.body
Notes - Religion, Law And Morality

# data[].attributes.body
Kant defines categorical imperatives as commands or moral laws all persons must follow, regardless of their desires or extenuating circumstances. As morals, these imperatives are binding on everyone.

What are the categorical imperative?

To illustrate the categorical imperative, Kant uses four examples that cover the range of morally significant situations which arise. These examples include committing suicide, making false promises, failing to develop one’s abilities, and refusing to be charitable.

What is Kant's moral imperative?

A moral imperative is a strongly-felt principle that compels that person to act. It is a kind of categorical imperative, as defined by Immanuel Kant. Kant took the imperative to be a dictate of pure reason, in its practical aspect.

# data[].attributes.body
IMMANUEL KANT (German philosopher - morality)
Hypothetical imperative
>  the term "if" - we will do something only if we want something - ex: we will do the task only if we want marks

Categorical imperative
3 aspects
> can be universalised - ex: treaty for child protection - this is accepted universally to be related to morality
> not something that make human as an object to do something - ex: forcing someone else to do something for one's own benefit
> kingdom of ends - related to the second aspect

# data[].attributes.headline
Immanuel Kant (manushri stephen Suthakar, A174715)

# data[].attributes.subject
Immanuel Kant (manushri stephen Suthakar, A174715)

# data[].attributes.body
Concept hypothetical imperative
-if concept
-depends on your decision

And the opposite of the statement is categorically inclined imperatives
-must obey the law
Requirements: universal, autonomy, what makes of human

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant
Hypothetical imperative: if you really want something, you'll go out of your way to get it. To take one example, suppose you want to eat.

It is categorical imperative.
There is no option but to follow the law.

# data[].attributes.body
Hypothetical

- moral commands that are conditional on personal desire or motives
- a command youshould follow if you want something
-based on desire
- universal/absolute

Categorical Imparative

- commands you must follow irrespective of your desires and motive
- absolute moral obligation derived from pure reason
-based on reason
- not universal or absolute

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant
1. Hypothetical imperative
- If you want something, then you'll get it by doing something.
2. Categorical imperative
- Bound by morality
- Human don't use another human to get something (exp: slavery)
3. Kingdom of ends
- emphasizes on autonomy
- cannot force someone to do something.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nur Aliya Natasha binti Mohd Nasir A173961

# data[].attributes.subject
Nur Aliya Natasha binti Mohd Nasir A173961

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant Moral Philosophy

-> Hyphothetical

– ‘if’ concept

- Contoh: if you want something, then you will work for it.

-> categorical – bound by it (opposite to hypothetical)

Contoh: We are bound by religion and morality.

Syarat2

-          Universal (sejagat) everyone agrees

-          Bukan jadikan manusia sebagai alat untuk dapatkan benda lain

-          Kingdom of ends (emphasize on individual autonomy)

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant
-hypothetical imperative: if you want something then you’ll go for it

Categorically imperative:
- cannot choose
-have 3 conditions
a. universal law
b. treat humans as used for something
c. Kingdom of ends

# data[].attributes.body
Kant's Moral Philosophy

i)Universally-An act is only permissible if one is willing for the maxim that allows the action to be a universal law by which everyone acts

ii)Formula of autonomy- Kant believed that any moral law motivated by the desire to fulfill some other interest would deny the Categorical Imperative, leading him to argue that the moral law must only arise from a rational will.

iii)Kingdom of Ends- An individual must choose to act by laws that imply an absolute necessity. It is from this point of view that they must judge themselves and their actions.

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant
-hypothetical imperative - IF you want something, do something to get it
-Categorical Imperative- it is bound by morality. There are 3 categories, first is universal law, second is treat humans and ends, third is kingdom of ends

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Categorical imperatives, according to Kant, are directives or moral principles that all people must obey, regardless of their wishes or extenuating circumstances. Everyone is bound by these moral imperatives as mora

# data[].attributes.body
German Jurist - Kant

*Hypothetical Imperative*

If a person wants something, the person has to do something to get it.

*Categorically Imperative*

A person is binding with morality.

Syarat penting:

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant:
-Emphasizes the concept of ‘if’
-If you want A, then you will do something to get A. At liberty to do what you want.
-It's known as hypothetical imperative.

There are three syarat forcategorical imperative- universal, it is not a tool to be used by human to achieve something, kingdom of ends

# data[].attributes.body
Vanusya A/P Joothymani (A173788)

# data[].attributes.body
Salam Dr, saya Nur Dayini Ahmad Masbor. Sempat tulis main points je dr, yang lain saya masuk ke telinga.

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant created the Hypothetical imperative and Categorical imperative

Hypothetical imperative :
The concept is that ‘if you want something, then only you'll do that certain act’

Categorical imperative:
opposite to Hypothetical imperative ,

One cannot choose to do that certain act or not as he is bound by morality. Morality shall be the law that is binding upon him.

Syarat Categorical imperative:
1. Boleh diuniversalkan
cth: abuse child is prohibited is agreed universally (binding untuk protect kanak2)

2. Benda tu bukan sesuatu untuk manusia sebagai alat untuk capai tujuan lain

3. Kingdom of ends: emphasis on autonomy --berkaitan dengan 2nd tadi. Semua orang ada autonomy masing2, dia reinforces this notion of autonomy

-Kingdom of ends is composed entirely of rational beings, whom Kant defines as those capable of moral deliberation

# data[].attributes.body
IMMANUAL KANT (ahli falsafah Jerman)

1. Hypothetical imperative

If (kalau nak marks, kena buat tugasan)

2. Categorical imperative

Tak boleh pilih - bound by it- morality

Syarat2

1. Universal law

2. Treat humans as ends in themselves

Bukan jadikan manusia sebagai alat utk tujuan yang lain

contoh : semua tulis nama Dr. untuk tulis paper

Bukan benda yang dianggap sebagai moral

Kalau dipaksa - bukan bermoral

1. Kingdom of ends

Individual autonomy

Eg: Islam ni gambaran dia vertical - buat satu benda utk dapatkan keredhaan Tuhan.

Buat untuk diri dia bukan untuk Tuhan ke sesiapa

# data[].attributes.body
Wong How Yee (A176277)

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant

Hypothetical imperative

If you want smtg only you do it (exp: lapar, makan)

Categorical imperative

Follow the law, no option

Three principles: universal law, not one that exploits human as a tool, kingdom of the ends

# data[].attributes.body
Notes on Emmanuel Kant

*hypothetical imperative*
- if you want good marks, you have to do something
- you nak apa, baru u nak buat apa

*categorical imperative*
- it's binding towards you, you have no choice but to do it.
- Three requirements
1. can be universal : disejagatkan
2. must be humanity : never use anyone as tools- must be moral
3. Kingdom of Ends : everyone has their own autonomy : you are an end in yourself

# data[].attributes.body
Emmanuel Kant
On categorical imperative,
Universalizability, humanity and kingdom of ends
- which bind us insofar as we are part of a group or society which we owe duties to, we cannot opt out of the categorical imperative because we cannot opt out of being rational agents.

On hypothetical imperative,
use "if" to question what is the achievement before doing

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant

# data[].attributes.body
Konsep moraliti oleh Immanuel Kant terbahagi kepada dua:

Hypothetical imperative: concept of ‘if’

Contoh: If you want to get marks you need to speak up

Categorical imperative: Bound by it so you must follow it

1)Bersifat sejagat (universal)

Contoh: Semua orang patut melindungi kanak-kanak

2)Mestilah bukan sesuatu perkara yang menjadikan manusia alat untuk tujuan lain.

Pelajar Wajib tulis artikel then pensyarah guna artikel tu sebagai sata perkara yang menyebabkan seorang pensyarah naik pangkat.

3) Kingdom of ends

-Semua orang mempunyai autonomi sendiri.

-You are your ends in yourself not anyone else for your own benefits

# data[].attributes.body
German jurist: Immanuel Kant

2 CONCEPTS

Hypothetical imperative – “if”
if you want something,  you will do it

Categorical imperative – opposite to hypothetical imperative. Bound by morality. Morality will be the law

3 requirements:

1. Can be universal,

2. bukan sesuatu yang menjadikan manusia sebagai alat untuk mencapai sesuatu yang lain / means to achieve an end

3. kingdom of ends - emphasize on individual’s autonomy

# data[].attributes.headline
Aida Syuhadah binti Ahmad Suhaimi - A173644

# data[].attributes.subject
Aida Syuhadah binti Ahmad Suhaimi - A173644

# data[].attributes.body
SYAZWAN PUNYA

# data[].attributes.body
Hypothetical imperative-
- if you want something, then you will do smtg to get it.
Categorical imperative
- you hv no choice you need to bound to it.

Sharon - a173639

# data[].attributes.headline
ANBAHNANTHY A/P G KRISHNAN MURTHY (A175412)

# data[].attributes.subject
ANBAHNANTHY A/P G KRISHNAN MURTHY (A175412)

# data[].attributes.body
Immanuel Kant

Categorical imparative

- x boleh pilih. Bound by morality.

-3 Syarat-

i) can make a thing universal. Cth: hak untuk kanak-kanak

ii) benda itu mesti sesuatu yang jadikan manusia -cth: wajibkan semua orang utk tulis article di surat khabar dan tulis nama orang lain sebagai author.

iii) kingdom of ends--human ada autonomi dia sendiri. He did for oneself.

Hypothetical imparative

-“if”

-if u want to get mark in juris class, u have to do it. Kalau you nak sesuatu, u perlu buat sesuatu.boleh buat pilihan.

# data[].attributes.body
hipotetikal imparative - konsep 'if'. if you want the thing, only the. you'll do it.  can choose.

caatgorival imparatives - the opposite of the above. you are bound by moral to do it.There are three condition to this imperative.