The theoretical perspective of legal realism emphasizes what the law is, it believes that the law can meaningfully instruct people to act in certain social contexts and , for this reason, can guide their behavior. who seek to obey his commandments. The theory is based on a principle often adhered to by most lay people and those with a legal background, where "the law" is about and is intrinsically linked to the actual outcomes of particular cases. Legal realism remains influential and has been remarkably successful in changing the terms of legal discourse and undermining the idea of ​​a self-regulating legal system. Legal realism combines the link between law and social reality; this would allow courts' judicial decisions to be more precise and promote social reforms. Kalman argues that “these realists believe that judicial decisions were “idiosyncratic” because they could not be explained as objective applications of pre-existing rules. » (Kalman, 1986) At the same time, the theory of realism aims to make the law both more predictable and better adapted to the achievement of social objectives. The theory emphasizes that the willingness to accept the point of view on judicial judgments is impossible to generalize because each judge was different and only "the personalities of the judges" could explain their decisions. The scientific analysis of judgment has historically revolved around this central question: To what extent does judicial decision-making depend on legal reasoning? Do judges, after finding the relevant facts of a case, consult the legal rules and then make their decision? Or is it simply based on facts, legal rules and precedents? The dominant model of judicial decision-making is an outgrowth of rational choice theory...... middle of paper ...... in statutory law, but as a development of socially acceptable actions in a context evolving society. The verdict reflects this in that it does not provide for a minimum sentence, which is consistent with the principle that intentional crimes should be punished more severely than unintentional crimes. The majority further rejected the proposition that there must be symmetry between all external elements of the offense and the elements of fault. This would require that there be an element of fault in the consequences of the actions, namely that the accused could have foreseen the death. This would require courts to abandon the thin-skull rule in R. v. Creighton, which has previously been upheld in homicide cases such as R. v. Smithers. It would therefore not be reasonable to require balance in all cases and would be detrimental to the situation. future judgments on these legal issues.Conclusion: