H. L. A. Hart's Lost Essay: 'Discretion' and the Legal Process Dchool

By Shaw, Geoffrey C. | Harvard Law Review, December 2013 | Go to article overview

H. L. A. Hart's Lost Essay: 'Discretion' and the Legal Process Dchool


Shaw, Geoffrey C., Harvard Law Review


INTRODUCTION

A few weeks before Thanksgiving, in 1956, H. L. A. Hart quietly gathered his thoughts as he watched "the most important public law thinkers" (1) of the Legal Process School take their seats at a new Harvard faculty seminar, unsure of what to expect. Hart was nervous. The exacting Oxford philosopher, at ease in logic tutorials and language games, was a stranger to the confident world of "busy ... proud ... vocational" (2) American law professors. Though highly regarded as a brilliant legal theorist, he was far from uncontroversial. And that evening, just two months into his year as a visiting professor at Harvard, Hart was going to lecture his new colleagues on a family of issues they cared deeply about: discretion, its place in the legal system, and the relationship between legal indeterminacy and the rule of law.

For Hart, still getting his bearings at Harvard, giving a lecture on such a charged topic was a daunting prospect--especially given the "potentates" (3) in his audience, which included Henry Hart, (4) Albert Sacks, Herbert Wechsler, Paul Freund, and Lon Fuller--but also an opportunity to demystify his approach to legal scholarship. The analytical jurisprudence Hart had developed at Oxford--which prized conceptual clarity, logical rigor, and the careful study of language in legal analysis--aroused suspicion among his new colleagues, who wondered whether he was a "radical positivist," as one American scholar had suggested just months before. (5) What could Hart's new jurisprudence offer legal scholars in the United States, for whom the study of law often hinged not on precise formulations of abstract concepts, but on insights into judicial behavior, institutional design, and social reality?

Exceptionally well versed in the history of American legal thought, Hart understood the persistent significance of the issues he had been asked to address. (6) In the nineteenth century, legal formalists had argued that legal questions have determinate answers that skilled lawyers can reach by reasoning from a finite set of legal sources. (7) By contrast, the realists of the early twentieth century had argued that judges and officials in fact exercise tremendous power of choice. (8) While realists hoped that this power of choice could be deployed progressively to improve social conditions, they never developed a theory to direct or constrain choice in law. Rule by arbitrary choice is not rule by law, and thus the lasting legacy of legal realism became a challenge: explain how legal in determinacy can be reconciled with the rule of law.

The problem of discretion became more pressing after the New Deal. Increased complexity in law meant more decisions, more indeterminacy, and greater need for a theory of what to do when indeterminacy arose. As they tried to figure out "how to have a dynamic, problem-solving government that [was] also lawlike and legitimate," (9) a group of post-New Deal professors, many of whom sat in Hart's audience, developed a tentative solution to the realists' challenge: discretion is acceptable in the legal system if it is sufficiently constrained and responsibly exercised. These "process theorists" accepted the realist idea that law is sometimes indeterminate, but pushed beyond realism, searching for a theory of how legal indeterminacy could be consistent with the rule of law. For process theorists, discretion and the rule of law could coexist symbiotically if responsible judges decided cases rationally, observing their institutional position with respect to the other branches of government, and explained their reasoning in writing, reflecting the judiciary's professional craft, rationality, and wisdom--things in which the public could place its trust. Just two years before Hart's arrival, the problem of discretion took on renewed, political urgency as Brown v. Board of Education (10) posed the sharper "counter-majoritarian difficulty." (11)

When his audience settled, Hart delivered a plainspoken analysis of discretion as a phenomenon in life and law--conversational yet uncompromising in philosophical precision. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

H. L. A. Hart's Lost Essay: 'Discretion' and the Legal Process Dchool
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.