American Legal Realism : Oliver Wendell Holmes And Jerome Frank

2168 Words Nov 30th, 2016 9 Pages
From time to time there arises a school of legal thought which undermines the errors of the past and establish truth. In the 21st centaury, this movement has been ongoing under the name of American Legal Realism. Legal realism, is a school of legal thought that is opposed to the dominant mechanical conception of adjudication and conventional view. The realists insist that on considering how courts really decide cases, it can be revealed that the decisions are not primarily based on law, but on the judge’s sense of what is “fair”. Least to say, those who agree with this theory claim that the judge himself is who creates the law. This paper will discuss theories of American legal realism discussed by theorists: Oliver Wendell Holmes and Jerome Frank. Secondly, the paper will focus on a few significant objections that one might have against the theory. To conclude, a strong opinion disagreeing with the objections against legal realism is depicted.
In society, rules and laws are enforced by the government for public safety and those who do not abide by the law are punished for disobedience. Judges are appointed to oversee judicial matters and use their intellect to determine decisions. According to the conventional view, judges are to determine the outcome of a legal case solely by stating whether the case at hand falls under a legal rule. This mechanical method of adjudication is referred to as legal reasoning. Legal reasoning limited the judge’s ability to amend and infer law…
Open Document