Realism Vs Legal Realism Essay

Amid the transverse from the bounds of conventional life to constitutionality we find ourselves at a divergence of sorts. A proverbial fork in the road that only jurisprudents must navigate. On the left we have the concept of legal realism while on the right we have the more dialectic concept of legal formalism. It is in this vein of thought that I base this paper on with the added objective of juxtaposing the two concepts. After which it will become increasingly apparent that legal realism is the superior methodology. Accordingly, my aim is to demonstrate that jurisprudents owe it to themselves, institution, and the people to utilize legal realism when determining a verdict.
Are point of departure starts with first defining the concepts legal realism and legal
Formalists would abhor any outside convention outside the natural deduction established to the particulars of a case. Legal realism is counteractive to the pure logical reason that legal formalism upholds. Legal realists determine that pure logic alone will never be pertinent in every litigation proceeding. Cases will arise when the judge will be required to account for extraneous factors that will not be considered when a formalist judge is at watch. Point of difference between the two methods being that a legal realist advocates the necessity of judicial interpretation while a legal formalist would contend that the law should be algorithmic through logic. Former Supreme court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes a fierce opponent of legal formalism articulated that “if you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences which such knowledge enables him to predict not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct, whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of conscience” (Holmes). For I resign to this point when thinking of the debate between legal formalism & legal realism.