Freedom of judgment: The relationship between court decisions and legal realism

The role of the judge in the application of law in the community is very influential. Judges as law enforcers are expected to bring the law into a more effective and efficient domain through their decisions. And judges must be able to maintain public trust in the court in order to create stable conditions. However, if the judge’s position in the court does not have freedom in interpreting legal cases, what happens is that the law will run less efficiently and effectively. Therefore, a new thought is needed about the position of judges in the courts to become more free and independent, as a solution to the slow development of legislation that results in the efficiency and effectiveness of the law. So that this research offers the thought of the legal realism as a form of response to delays in the development of laws and regulations, and inefficiencies and ineffectiveness of the law. The method used is conceptual critical analysis as the main method with reading books or texts relating to the legal realism. Referring to this explanation it can be seen that the role of the judge in handling legal issues and making adjudication is very important. Moreover, in the development of legislation and the legal life thereafter through a precedent. By making judges the center of law making, the law will become more effective and the law can develop in accordance with the dynamics of society. That is what underlies the thinking of legal realism and the discussion in this paper. the basic of that is on the reconstruction of the main ideas, that are important points in this paper and examines them further. These important points include the role of judges who are more independent and free, the imposition of decisions based on experience, morals and politics of judges, research, more flexible logic and other scientific approaches that will be applied to the legal system in handle legal cases and how the value of the judge’s decision results with the freedom of the judge.