Grafické znázornění v právu

I. The first part deals in a general way with the means of graphical demonstration. The sphere of investigation is limited to graphs based on (enumeration according to the graphical means employed): 1. the oriented straight line pict. 1, 2 2: the abscissa – pict. 3, 4, 5 – 3. square formations – pict. 6, 7, 8, 9 – 4. connections between a number of elements – pict. 12, 13, 14 5. tabular graphs – pict. 15, 16 – 6. cartograms. These graphs can be used in legal science for the purpose of demonstrating (enumeration according to the demonstrated objects): 1. the division of a total into its parts, 2. the mutual comparison of certain totals with regard to their parts, 3. other mutual relations between juridical notions, 4. the demonstration of' a sequence in time, 5. the territorial dispersion. The purpose, which these graphical means can serve, can be: 1. a communicative one, 2. a pedagogical one, 3. that of modelling juridical considerations, 4. a cognitive one (in a double sense: exceptionally these means can directly help to find out new connections, normally they help indirectly to facilitate the orientation in the matter). Among these purposes the most important is the pedagogical one, which is treated in part II. The graphical demonstration has the character of a special language in the sense logic gives to this word. Its precision is based upon the convention concerning the coordination between the set of juridical notions and the set of graphical elements. The graphical demonstration simplifies its model; this can be interpreted as: a) a lack of completion, b) as a distortion caused by the technics of drawing, c) as the isolation of certain features, d) as the stressing of what is essential. The cases c) and d) cannot be regarded as deficiencies of graphical methods; the contrary is true in this case. If the graphical demonstration has to be applied within the mentioned limits, certain conditions have however to be respected. II. The intuitive character of graphs will find a good application in the instruction. The graphical demonstration belongs to the so called indirect intuitiveness. The author argues then against some objections against the extension of intuitive methods to the instruction of legal science in the universities; he quotes examples of cases when intuitive methods have given good results and he draws the attention to the fact that a certain simplification is necessary in the instruction and is proper to every didactical means. He disagrees with the objection that the graphical demonstration would draw the attention away from essential problems to secondary ones. He agrees however with the objection that the means in question have an unilateral character and he rejects intuitive methods in their more primitive forms. The sphere within which graphs can be used in law is naturally a smaller one than it is in technical-sciences. The author has prepared simultaneously a manual of penal law and of penal procedure and he intends to prove practically in his manual that the possibilities of these methods are much wider than their actual utilization. As far as more complicated graphical means are concerned, one cannot suppose that the student would make them out successfully by himself. The author remarks in his conclusion that the neglecting of graphical demonstration in law is caused by a long tradition and by the way in which lawyers acquire their instruction. Even if graphical demonstration has but limited possibilities in law, it is necessary to utilize those possibilities as much as possible.