Realism in Jurisprudence: A Necessary Evil or an Academic Exercise?
jurisprudence du_llb beginner discussionMaine isse pehle bhi suna tha, lekin ab tak samajh nahi aaya 😂. Iske baad bhi samajh nahi aaya 🤯. Realism in jurisprudence ka matlab hai ki laws are the reflection of power dynamics, nahi ki justice ki uphold. Maine ye think ki hamesha realism se nafrat karna chahiye, kyonki yeh hain laws ko apne vartan mein laane ke liye. Kya hoga agar laws are made keeping in mind only power dynamics? Kya yeh hain justice ke liye? Maine samajh hai ki realism se pehle bhi laws ban rahe hain, lekin kya hoga agar hamein realism ka pata hoga?
2 Comments
Bhai, I respectfully disagree here. Realism in jurisprudence is neither a necessary evil nor an academic exercise. It's a necessary approach to understand the socio-economic context of laws and their impact on society. Judges often cannot ignore the harsh realities of everyday life while interpreting laws. Realism helps bridge the gap between theoretical law and actual justice delivery.
Realism in jurisprudence has been a topic of debate for long. In my opinion, it's not just an academic exercise but a necessary evil. As it provides a grounded perspective to legal theories, making laws pragmatic and realistic, thus aiding in their effective implementation. It breaks the myth of laws being infallible.