Legal Realism: how law really works
George Tsouris・2 minutes read
George discusses legal realism, critical legal studies, and law as integrity as different legal philosophies that focus on how the law works and how people use it, emphasizing the influence of biases on human decision-making and judges' flexibility in applying rules. Frank challenges the idea of certainty in legal matters, highlighting judges' biases in decision-making and advocating for a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between rules and rationalizations in the legal system.
Insights
- Legal realism, as articulated by Jerome Frank, questions the idea of legal certainty by highlighting the impact of biases on human judgment, suggesting that judges often rationalize decisions rather than arrive at them through genuine arguments.
- Frank's legal realism challenges conventional notions of legal processes, emphasizing the significant role of judges' biases and individual decisions in shaping legal outcomes, advocating for a more flexible and nuanced application of rules in legal decision-making.
Get key ideas from YouTube videos. It’s free
Recent questions
What is legal realism?
A: Legal realism challenges certainty in law, focusing on biases.
How do judges make decisions?
A: Judges make decisions based on biases and interests.
How does legal realism view lawyers?
A: Lawyers support clients' interests, similar to judges.
What does legal realism suggest about the law?
A: Legal realism suggests law is based on judges' decisions.
How does legal realism compare judges to physicians?
A: Legal realism advocates for a flexible approach in legal decisions.
Related videos
Fit im Verwaltungsrecht
Juristische Methodik 2: Anforderungen und Kompetenzen
Jeffrey Kaplan
Legal Positivism - the dominant theory in jurisprudence
University of Virginia School of Law
"How to Read a Case" with UVA Law Professor Anne Coughlin
University of Virginia School of Law
Overview of the American Legal System and the Life of a Case (2019)
University of Virginia School of Law
Overview of the American Legal System
Summary
00:00
Challenging Legal Realism: Jerome Frank's Perspective
- George discusses legal realism, critical legal studies, and law as integrity as three different legal philosophies that focus on how the law works and how people use it.
- Legal realism, as explained by Jerome Frank, challenges the idea of certainty in legal matters, highlighting the influence of biases on human decision-making.
- Frank suggests that judges often arrive at conclusions first and then rationalize them with reasons, which he views as more like rationalizations than genuine arguments.
- He argues that judges and lawyers work similarly, with lawyers supporting their clients' interests and judges making decisions based on biases and personal interests.
- Frank asserts that law is not solely based on written rules but on judges' decisions in individual cases, making those decisions the actual law.
- He compares judges to physicians, advocating for a more flexible approach to applying rules in legal decisions.
- While judges must use proper reasoning supported by rules, they still have the freedom to choose which rules best fit their conclusions, based on biases and prior beliefs.
- Frank's legal realism challenges traditional views on how laws work, emphasizing the role of judges' biases and decisions in shaping legal outcomes.
- His philosophy prompts a reevaluation of how legal decisions are made, suggesting a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between rules and rationalizations in the legal system.
