I see from the Jurisprudence article on Wikipedia, that people may want some words on Philosophy of Law from me. These are (rather quickly):
1. There should be no holes in a good system of legal practice/legislation system!
2. The laws are absolute and they can't be reasonably dodged. This point is supported by point 1.
3. (if nec.) The laws are complete and describe only objective circumstances (pertaining to HDM and quality of evidence) and most certainly only real life.
4. Legislation is on TOP. The courts are nr. 2 and the Police are nr. 3. There are various security concerns to this. I think the Police need clear rules/procedures as they do their work. I think the Judges only need to set a precedent if the Legislative Assembly (National Parliament) feigns its duties. So I want/hold a theory for a sharp and pro-active Legislative Body and "Judges only to the rescue", acting secondarily so to speak! Good?
Just in case of interest, I find Antonin Scalia's Originalist position compatible with a "Legislationist" position. Thus I pay respect to forming laws "in the spirit of the Book of Laws (fx. Norges Lover)". Or when you sit there writing, that you are "in a spirit of the Law". This should be the beginning bricks for foundation! (Not having read a book, but generally (very) interested for a long time (I'm 35).
You should note my point on Godel (Goedel) in Phil. Notes. I'm hard and I know it. There will be no excuses if the future is properly cared for!!!
The header of it says: Opinions on Gödel's Theorems of Incompleteness and Possibly Tarski and link is (one of them): http://whatiswritten777.blogspot.com/2011/08/philosophical-notes-of-intellectual.html.
What is Written...: Philosophical Notes of Intellectual Music,
Also take note on the meditative state for making laws. Legislation happens at most meditative state, down to the Judges (by the heat of the Trial and direct Justice down further to Police under fire, so to speak! Thus, this comes natural!
You can get good lessons from Court TV (Nancy Grace) and various interviews from your or U.S. American Supreme Court Members by 60 Minutes. General media awareness isn't so bad either...
I must add that Europe can do well with its own Courts reporting (by example of Nancy Grace) and Justice section on CNN U.S. American edition and a Situation Room type of Legal Practice reporting (in media where there is "interest"). I welcome a more aware and active Legal Practice reporting in Europe. Also in the Pan-European sense (to close some holes for these "U.S. Americans" if not the "Colombians"... :-D
I believe it has been Clarence Thomas who has uttered the words on an interview with CBS 60 Minutes that "you _need_ legislation to make verdicts". Consequently, I have the "Legislationist" position from him, but I'm uncertain if it is he who says the words or somebody else because a fair amount of time has passed since then.
When I write "Absolutist", I mean of course that there should be (normativity) little or no room for "interpretation". Burglary is thus burglary and rape, even for the sexist or crazy, is still the rape. The victim can never be the burglar oneself and the victim can't either be the rapist oneself. Some people are blind to this, they fail to make proper distinctions of words or situations or whatever. I also think that today's systems across the world seeks brevity of law as description of law on a rather unfounded basis. Therefore, I can imagine a more complete description to go with the law as it's delivered from the Legislative Assembly. Fx. in case it's needed, a better description can be given as a secondary compilation to the laws by corresponding documents to the collection of laws where these are needed. A law concerning The Protection of Private Information as fx. one's private address can be given a better description until it reaches a level of descriptive completeness, possibly adding 1, 2 or 3 pages. Better now?
Even if we speak of filming for the press, there is still no valid objection to having this filmed by Court's Archiving Services! Thus, Courts would have the pressure to do the job right and appeals could become much more clear. Corruption could also get rooted out much faster and idiot judges would never be allowed. But corruption to the archiving system makes every problem return again! I say, attack! (Because the world really looks retarded!)
So under the "Issues from the Internet", under the header of "What are your philosophical positions?" you can now add on me, Philosophy of Law: Absolutist, Legislationist and Originalist. Just for the update.
Note: last comment has been added a few minutes ago!