Has the Categorical Imperative, or something similar, even been used historically to establish something that could perhaps be termed, “Personal Judicial Precedence”? By this, I mean a practice whereby a verdict is come to by looking at the actions of the defendant and seeing if s/he, him or herself was in a situation where the roles were reversed and then seeing how the defendant dealt with the situation.

I don’t have any legal background, so I apologize if my example scenario doesn’t sound quite right, but for example, if a defendant were on trial for failing to pay back a loan, but it was shown that this defendant had forgiven, when financially possible, other people’s not paying back loans on time (with non-legally binding loans for example), within this framework, then the defendant would be given more leniency on his or her own loan (even if legally binding), because of these prior actions. Conversely, had the defendant not forgiven loans in the past, whether legally binding or not, then the defendant would be, in this case, held up to his or her own standard as defined by their past actions.

Historically or presently has there been any such system?

  • This principle might be relevant at a sentencing hearing, where the defendant's character or history can be taken into account. – Just a guy Aug 14 '20 at 8:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.