This is a sequel to my Oct. 7 column in which I opined that judicial decision-making could be reduced, in its simplest terms, into an Aristotelian syllogism, and that most of the time, the crucial part of the syllogism is the minor premise on whether the facts alleged in the complaint or information have been duly proven.
In its most simplified sense, judicial decision-making can be reduced to an Aristotelian syllogism consisting of a major premise, a minor premise and a logical conclusion. Example: The major (or legal) premise in a criminal case for homicide is “anyone who kills another shall be jailed.” The minor (or factual) premise is “Pedro killed Juan.” And the logical conclusion (or decision) is, therefore, “Pedro shall be jailed.” The syllogism can be abbreviated in the formula: law times facts equals decision, or L x F = D.
