Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Realism (Features in Common of Realist Thinkers (Law is always changing,…

- - - - Homes
        
        law is what the courts actually said
        
        therefore the focus should
        be on decisions of courts.
        
        law as a set of consequences.
        
        We can understand them if we can predict
        with some certainty the outcome of the decisions of courts
        
        actual decisions will depend on the courts assessment of the relevant legal policy
    - - Gray
        
        judicial attitudes are more important than statutes.
        
        statutes were only barebones the flesh came from judicial decisions
        
        the laws of great nations mean the opinions of a half a dozen men some of them conceivably of limited intelligence
    - - Karl
        
        "functionalism"
        
        The Bramble Bush. The
        Common Law Tradition and The Cheyenne Way
        
        "engine having purposes not values in itself” Law according to him was a major institution
        
        and an institution is an organized activity built around a job or a cluster of jobs. These are
        
        known as 'law jobs'
    - - Frank
        
        Follower of Holmes
        
        Didn't Like the name: Realists
        
        Instead
        
        Rule Sceptics
        
        They doubted the certainty of laws formal rules. They looked for certainty in judicial decisions by looking in to the psychology politics sociology etc of judges.
        
        This aspect of Realism is where there is Scepticism as to whether rules are they exist in practice play the part traditionally ascribed to thorn.
        
        The multiplicity of rules can lead to conflicting results. It means that in reaching his decision read the entire corpus of the relevant law.
        
        Most often they (judges) pretend to have regard to the statutes earlier case decisions that would guide him to the correct decision. But what actually happens is that he think about the matters is question and decided who has the best case. There after they would go to the law books to work out a chain of reasons that would lead to the predetermination of the final judgment.
        
        Here the will not be the rules of law that would settle the issue in question, But the instinct of the judge as to which side -to win for which he would later find the support of the law determines the outcome of the case.
        
        On the other hand certainty of the rules is also an illusion for rules are general propositions and general propositions do not decide concrete cases. (Mainly concentrated on the appellate courts)
        
        According to rule 'sceptics' certainty is unattainable primarily because. rules by their very nature cannot envelope every conceivable situation and it is therefore unavoidable that some element of discretion would remain with regard to the application of the rule in marginal contexts.
        
        Fact Sceptics
        
        1) They doubted the certainty of facts placed before courts such as evidence because of a wide range of factual situations. (They concentrated on trial courts)
        
        2) They look at how facts would hardly be taken in to consideration in making judicial decisions.
        
        3) He holds that there are certain illusive factors that would effect on outcome of case decision. These are prejudices of a judge or jurors. (Racial, religious, Political or economic prejudices) These illusive factors operate unconsciously.