Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124346735555660341.html
In the article Judge Sotomayor who is a legal realist, makes some valid points. She advocates that the law is not static and predictable but is to be addressed, reformed, and tailored to the case presented. I’m not necessarily a supporter of legal realism, but I feel it is irrational to think it is not what actually happens. It is nearly impossible and subconsciously that one’s background, judge or otherwise, influences the decisions that one makes. Judges are human and they use their personal experience in conjunction with the law to arrive at a decision. Isn’t law in essence just a guideline, for how we should run our society, and as society evolves shouldn’t our laws as well as how they’re interpreted? Where I do differ from legal realism is in the inability to properly gage or control to what extent one’s background, or biases can sway one's view. As stated in the article, if this theory of justice were to be abused “parties in cases to get different results depending on the ethnic makeup of the court” could occur, which ultimately undermine the law. Since there is no perfect system, and legal realism seems like the most realistic way to approach the law. I think in general it does more good for our overall society and legal system than hinders it.
I do agree with you in that we can't expect judges to not be influenced by their own background or socio-economic class; but on the other hand I agree with the ideas of legal realism all the way. The only thing I find myself questioning in your post is this quotation:
ReplyDelete"Isn't Law in essence just a guideline, for how we should run our society, and as society evolves shouldn't our laws as well as how they're interpreted?"
I do agree that the laws should change as our society progresses, but I don't feel as though that means we need to leave it to different interpretation by different people. I feel that law is something more than a guideline, instead it is meant to protect us, which is why we formed societies in the first place; and leaving the law to be open to different interpretations allows for too much variation in legal decisions which could infringe upon what the law is actually set up to do.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree that judges are human and their decisions are going to be influenced by their background and own experiences. I also agree that two jurys consisting of two enthnicities could result in different results. Our society is constantly changing and evolving and if we were to constantly be changing our laws to follow the society it would all become very confusing and hard to follow. It would become especially hard to follow if too many people had their input on how the laws were to change. If this were the case I believe that nothing would get done.
ReplyDelete