Writing in the early twentieth century, Max Weber believed that a definitive feature of a developed state had come to be its bureaucratic help. Law professor and former United States Attorney General Edward H. Levi famous that the “basic pattern of authorized reasoning is reasoning by example”—that’s, reasoning by comparing outcomes in cases resolving similar authorized questions. Supreme Court case regarding procedural efforts taken by a debt collection company to keep away from errors, Justice Sotomayor cautioned that “legal reasoning isn’t a mechanical or strictly linear process”. There have been several attempts to provide “a universally acceptable definition of regulation”.
In 1972, Baron Hampstead advised that no such definition could possibly be produced. McCoubrey and White said that the question “what is legislation?” has no simple reply. Glanville Williams stated that the meaning of the word “law” is determined by the context during which that word is used. He stated that, for example, “early customary regulation” and “municipal legislation” were contexts where the word “regulation” had two totally different and irreconcilable meanings. Thurman Arnold stated that it is apparent that it’s unimaginable to define the word “law” and that it is also equally obvious that the battle to outline that word should not ever be abandoned.
It is possible to take the view that there isn’t any need to outline the word “legislation” (e.g. “let’s forget about generalities and get down to cases”).
In exceptional circumstances defences can apply to particular acts, such as killing in self defence, or pleading madness. Another instance is in the nineteenth-century English case of R v Dudley and Stephens, which examined a defence of “necessity”. Three crew members and Richard Parker, a 17-year-old cabin boy, were stranded on a raft. They argued it was necessary to kill the cabin boy to protect their very own lives.