Although the legal systems of England and the United States are superficially similar, they differ profoundly in their approaches to and uses of legal reasons: substantive reasons are more common than formal reasons in the United States, whereas in England the reverse is true.
Topic
The different approaches to legal reasoning in England and the United States.
Framework
Old / New
Main Point
Although the legal systems in England and the United States might look similar, the underlying approach to reasoning is very different: the U.S. system is more likely to use "substantive" (values-based) reason, while England sticks more to "formal" (rule-based) reasoning. The clearest encapsulation is in the first sentence: (Very beginning of P1.)
P1: Introduction—The Big Difference
We're told up front that, despite looking similar on the surface, the U.S. and England have opposing styles regarding legal reasoning. England sees law as a system of rules (formal), while the U.S. is more about reflecting societal values (substantive).
P2: What are Substantive Reasons? (with Example)
Substantive reasons are moral, economic, or political and can come from both inside and outside the law's text itself. The author illustrates with a "no vehicles in the park" law: U.S. judges would interpret the law based on its overall purpose (public safety and peace), and might let things slide if they don't disrupt that purpose.
P3: What are Formal Reasons? (with Example)
Formal reasons stick strictly to the rules. Even if the purpose behind a rule is good, if the formal requirements aren't met (like a will missing a proper witness), the law is not enforced. Once the formal rule is set, you can't argue for exceptions based on good reasons.