23 September 2010
One of the reasons I am interested in jurisprudence is that you can easily follow the different interpretative theories and their effects. It is possible for different investigations of the same event (or “case”) to have varied results, sometimes even contradictory. Admittedly, this (as it usually happens) can be attributed to the differences between the investigation methods or the quantity and quality of the material available (including the human one – e.g. witnesses). But it is also the theories or the emphasis placed, within these, on one interpretative locus or another that can significantly influence the result of the analysis or process. Justice is a field that provides one the best exemplifications of the famous Nietzsche’s saying that “there are no facts, only interpretations”. Although many may dispute the first half of the maxim, when it comes to justice, because many legal cases are based on events that are difficult to neglect or catalogue only as “interpretative material”.