The theoretical perspective of legal realism emphasizes what law is, argues that law can significantly instruct people to act in certain social contexts, and for this reason can guide the behaviors of those who try to obey his commands. The theory operates on a premise that is often adhered to by most lay people and many who have a legal background in which it deals with “the law” and is intrinsically linked to the real-world 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 connection between law and social reality; this would allow judicial decisions by courts to be more accurate and promote social reform. Kalman argues that “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, realism theory aims to make law more predictable and more suitable for achieving 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. Academic analysis of adjudication has historically revolved around this central question: How much of judicial decision-making depends on legal reasoning? Do judges, after ascertaining the relevant facts of a case, consult the legal rules and then arrive at their decision? Or is it simply based on facts, legal rules and precedents? The dominant model of judicial decision making is a consequence of rational choice theory lies...... middle of paper ...... in statutory law but as the development of socially acceptable actions in an evolving social context. The sentence handed down reflects this as it does not provide a minimum sentence, which is in line with the principle that intentional crimes should be punished more severely than non-intentional crimes. The majority also rejected the thesis according to which there must be symmetry between all the external elements of the crime and the elements of guilt. This would require there to be an element of guilt for the consequences of the acts, i.e. that the defendant could foresee death. This would require courts to abandon the thin-skull rule in R. v. Creighton, which has previously been affirmed in murder cases such as R. v. Smithers, it would therefore be unreasonable to require balance in all cases and would plague future judgments on such legal issues.Conclusion: