Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Criticism of legal realism
The law in modern society
Law is a social fact
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Criticism of legal realism
The theoretical perspective of legal realism emphasises what the law is, it reasons that the law can meaningfully instruct people to act in certain social contexts, and for this reason can guide behaviours of those who seek to obey its commands. The theory operates on a premise that it adheres to often by most laymen and many who have legal training where ‘the law’ is concerned with and is intrinsically tied to the real-world outcomes of particular cases. Legal Realism remains influential and has been remarkably successful in changing the terms of legal discourse and in undermining the idea of a self-regulating legal system. Legal realism combines the connection between law and social reality; this would enable judicial decisions by the courts to be more accurate and to promote social reforms. Kalman argues, “that they realists believe that judicial decisions were “idiosyncratic” because they could not be explained as objective applications of pre-existing rules.” (Kalman, 1986) At the same time the theory of realism aims to make law both more predictable and better suited to achieving social goals. The theory goes onto emphasis that the willingness to accept the view on judicial judgements is impossible to generalize because every judge was different and only “the personalities of judges” could explain their decisions.
The scholarly analysis of judging has historically revolved around this central question: how much of judicial decision making depends on legal reasoning? Do judges, after finding the relevant facts of a case consult legal rules and then arrive at their decision? Or is it merely based on facts, legal rules and precedent? The dominant model of judicial decision making is an outgrowth of rational choice theory sta...
... middle of paper ...
...in statutory law but as a development of socially acceptable actions in an evolving societal context. The verdict handed down reflects this in that it has no minimum sentence, this is in line with the principle that intentional crimes are to be punished more severely than unintentional crimes. The majority further dismissed the proposition that there must be symmetry between all external elements of the offence and the fault elements. This would require that there be a fault element for the consequences of the acts, namely, that the accused’s could foresee death. This would require for the courts to abandon the thin skull rule in R. v. Creighton which has already been previously affirmed in cases of homicide such as R. v. Smithers thus it would not be reasonable to require balance in all cases and would afflict future judgements on such legal issues.
Conclusion:
The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing
Legal consciousness refers to how people’s different conceptions of law determine whether they mobilize or resist the law (SOC216, Jan. 26). Susan S. Silbey and Patricia Ewick disclose three narratives of how people perceive the law: before the law, with the law and up against the law (2000). Individuals who are before the law fundamentally treat legality as an objective realm that is removed from their ordinary social lives (Silbey and Ewick 2000). They believe that the law is a hierarchical classification of rules that is both majestic and impartial (Silbey and Ewick 2000). In regards to ‘with the law’, legality is described and played as a game, in which existing rules can be arrayed accordingly and new rules can be invented in order to serve the individual’s interests (Silbey and Ewick 2000). Legality is described as a “terrain for tactical encounters” where
The focus of this essay is to examine the extent to which Dworkin provides a convincing alternative to positivism. The central claim of legal positivism states that "in any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits". Dworkin completely rejects the positivist approach because he believes that "no combination of source-based rules, no matter how broadly construed or how carefully crafted can ground a theory of law". Dworkin is evidently making a big move away from positivism. The first part of this essay will explore how Dworkin 's rejection of positivism has led him to formulate an alternative theory of law. The final part of the essay will analyse how Dworkin has failed in getting an
Law and Society, Ninth Edition, by Steven Vago. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2009 by Pearson Education, Inc
of law that has been used to base his decision on. This is called the
There is a major difference between what law is, and what law ought to be. Although several ideas derived from natural law theory line up with the beliefs of the constitutional monarchy of Canada, there are inconsistencies. That said, the system of law in Canada is most comparable with Legal Positivism. After analyzing the purpose of Legal Positivism, the similarities between it and Canada’s legal system become obvious. Both systems exercise the concept of primary and secondary rules, both contain a theory of legal obligation and lastly, both have a theory which answers for judicial interpretation.
In his article ‘Guarding the gates of St Peter: life, death and law making,’ Jonathon Montgomery makes a firm statement that ‘the judiciary has stepped beyond the territory that is appropriate for the courts into the province of legislation.’ Montgomery argues that the creation of laws is a right reserved for Parliament, however it seems as though the courts have not stepped beyond their territory but rather stepped into place where the law has fallen
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
‘Law as integrity’ embraces a vision for judges which states that as far as possible judges should identify legal rights and duties assuming that they are created by the public as an entity, and that they express the public’s perception of justice and fairness. This requires Dworkin’s ideal of Hercules, a judge of ‘superhuman skill, learning, patience and acumen’, to ask whether his interpretation of law could form a part of a coherent theory justifying the whole legal system. Law as integrity stipulates that the law must express one voice. Judges must accept that the law is based around coherent principles about justice, fairness and procedural due process, in all new cases which comes before them in order to treat everybody equally.
In this essay, I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach the conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil. Most people would dispute that the significance of law in society is to obtain justice, however justice is simply a term which is determined subjectively, it relates to an individuals moral viewpoint.
In the discussion of legal philosophy there is the ever occurring question “what is law”, many legal philosophers have attempted to answer such question but I believe the one philosopher to change the field entirely was John Austin. John Austion was the first modern legal positivist (and possibly founding father) to present a contemporary theory of law. Austin’s main interest in the philosophy of law was differentiating the reality of the law from the normative or moral merit of law. This in sense is scientific approach because positivism is an empirical approach to philosophy, which extends it use to the scientific method and other fields. None the less my goal here is not to present an all-out account of Austin but to present a comprehensive evaluation of legal positivism and present the issues I have found prominent in legal validity, whether it be with Hart, Austin any other theorist. However I feel it may be necessary to start with the earliest theorist on the subject John Austin.
We must consider whether they are “authoritarian law-makers, or if their profession makes them mere declarers of the law”. In this essay, I will argue the ways that judges do make law, as well as discussing the contrary. The English legal system is ostensibly embedded on the foundation of a ‘high degree of certainty with adaptability’ based on a steady ‘mode’ of legal reasoning. This rests on four propositions. 1.
This shows that judges in fact, do possess a certain amount of discretion. It has even been argued that in practice, judges seemed to have first come to decisions or conclusions of their own before actually searching and relying on precedents in line with their decisions to back them up. In the case of Merritt v Merritt [1970] CA, Balfour v Balfour [1919] was a prima
Law is a tool in society as it helps to maintain social control, promoting social justice. The way law functions in society and its social institution provide a mechanism for solutions. There are many different theories of the function of law in relation to society in considering the insight they bring to different socio-legal and criminological problems. In the discussion of law’s role in social theory, Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich share similar beliefs in the jurisprudence of society. They focused their work on the experience of individuals in establishing meaning in their legal relations with others based on the question of what it means to be a participant in law. Jürgen Habermas presents a relationship between law and morality. From a certain standpoint, law is a key steering mechanism in society as it plays an educational role in promoting conducts, a mean of communication and it
Legal realism defines legal rights and duties as whatever the court says they are. Out of all the legal theories we have examined in class, I personally believe that this is the one that best exemplifies the purpose of law and would best suit and benefit society. The Dimensions of Law textbook defines legal realism as “the school of legal philosophy that examines law in a realistic rather than theoretical fashion; the belief that law is determined by what actually happens in court as judges interpret and apply law.”