Psychological v. Sociological Legal Realism

The theoretical differences in psychological and sociological legal realism might seem lucid. Yet, in practice, distinguishing between the two is extremely difficult (as I ended up learning during my research and presentation).

Both sects of realism adhere to the idea of indeterminacy: there are many several conflicting sources of law (precedent and legal statutes). Some factions of legal realism assert that judges reach a decision prior to even considering the legal rationale behind a decision. Judges can then apply precedent strictly or loosely- they can interpret a law textually or search for its deeper meaning, its intent. According to psychological legal realism, a judge's political ideology or 'freudian' psychological makeup influence their decision. Sociological legal realism holds that judges are to some extent bound by a system of laws- that in fact psycho-sociological factors that sway a judge's decision. Judges have this sense of duty- they tend to do what they believe what is socially best for society.

It's hard to differentiate between cases of psychological and sociological legal realism. One of the cases we mentioned in class today- Hall v. Hall, could have been construed either way. To recap, the case concerned the visitation rights of an abusive father. All 3 women on the court sided with the ex-wife. One might assume that based on the women's interaction with men over the course of their lifetime they might have been able to more effectively empathize with the woman in the case. Conversely, one might assume that the women used the law as a tool of social change- they meant to prevent society's sadistic fathers from mistreating their wives and children.

In theory, there's a pretty wide discrepancy between psychological and sociological legal realism, but in reality it's hard to tell the difference.