Why is the primary point about the humanity of judges "prejudice"? Doesn't human thought have other properties, including—for example—flexibility in the collection and assessment of evidence that systems based on the idea that law is of directly divine declaration tend to have difficulty reaching, or a concern with the availability of appeals for the correction of error that—onec again, for one example—Islamic and traditional Jewish legal process has never particularly valued?

Although Kardashian’s content exhibits criminal law’s tangible consequences, it tends to do so while conflating law and morality. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a leader in the development of legal realism, holds, “If you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences.” Kardashian seems to align with this approach by exhibiting criminal law’s direct and profound impact on not only the accused but also society at large.

But this isn't what Holmes was talking about. As he says in the next sentence, it is evident that the law contains, reflects, and amplifies moral ideas. His point is about vocabulary, about the ways in which words drawn from the language of morals ("malice," for example) once they become legal terms of art cause confusion, which can be eased by reading them from the perspective of an amoral actor. As he says elsewhere, in a letter to a Chinese philosopher and legal scholar, "ideas are not often hard, but words are the Devil."

For instance, in her podcast The System: The Case of Kevin Keith, Kardashian presents the consequences of capital punishment on multiple levels. The podcast reveals that Keith’s death sentence caused him to enter a depressive state and contemplate suicide. In addition, the podcast discusses that the implementation of the death penalty results in racial discrepancies. Thus, by highlighting the impacts of capital punishment rather than the theories behind it, Kardashian’s content aligns with the legal realist principle that laws must be understood in terms of their tangible consequences.

Yes, in the same sense that dropping an apple is aligned with either Newtonian gravity of the theory of relativity. Is every reference to facts about law "legal realism"? Do formalists never concern themselves with evidence?

What does it mean to call it a moral notion? Are the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments moral or legal provisions? How can conviction and punishment of the innocent be consistent with the fundamentals of the rule of law?

I don't understand what this means. Surely this is a perfectly coherent reason for opposing capital punishment. The exoneration of almost a dozen prisoners on death row in Illinois (the result of collaboration between Northwestern's journalism school and a death penalty clinic at the university's law school founded and run by my SCt contemporary Larry Marshall) resulted in a moratorium that has effectively ended capital punishment in the State. Of all the arguments against the death penalty, it is the one I take most seriously. Have I stopped being a legal realist?

However, the more functional consideration is whether the tangible consequences of capital punishment—as exercised on both innocent and guilty individuals—warrants criticism.

What does this sentence mean?

Furthermore, Kardashian’s recognition of judicial subjectivity may encourage the public to view judges not as pillars of objectivity and logic but rather as humans with their own sets of experiences, beliefs, and prejudices. This perspective could produce calls for greater transparency and scrutiny in judicial decision-making. All in all, Kim Kardashian’s criminal justice content prompts public contemplation of the mechanisms of the legal system, potentially reshaping how society perceives and interacts with law.

I don't understand this argument. Is there something distinctive about the way Kim Kardahian, as opposed to other uneducated non-lawyer celebrity commentators on legal matters speak or think? Must we take the idea of Kim Kardashian as a social commentator seriously in order to be an intended reader of this essay, or is it your desire to say something useful to people who think she's ignorant and absurd? If so, what is that something?

I think there is an idea here about the nature of public civic education, and I think it would improve the essay to make the idea explicit. If we compare the legal affairs commentary of Kardahian and, say, Donald Trump, are we just comparing follower counts, or are we also making some substantive distinction between one form of blowhard and another? What is that distinction?

Why don't you put the headings in the text before the sections to which they apply?

Reality TV Meets Legal Realism: Kim Kardashian’s Criminal Justice Content and Legal Realist Principles

In an era where popular culture and legal dialogues increasingly interact, Kim Kardashian emerges as a central figure, as she frequently advocates for criminal justice reform to her hundreds of millions of followers. Since her content regarding the criminal justice system has sparked widespread public interest, debate, and criticism, it is critical to understand the legal theories that Kardashian presents to the masses. Specifically, Kardashian’s approach to criminal justice both mirrors and deviates from legal realist principles, which could have implications for the public’s understanding of the mechanisms of the legal field. It is crucial to clarify that the intent of this analysis is not to determine whether Kardashian’s work is “good” or “bad” but rather to understand how her criminal justice content intersects with two central principles of legal realism: (1) Law must only be understood through its practical impacts and social consequences and thus cannot be conflated with morality and (2) judges are human actors susceptible to social prejudices.

Although Kardashian’s content exhibits criminal law’s tangible consequences, it tends to do so while conflating law and morality. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., a leader in the development of legal realism, holds, “If you want to know the law and nothing else, you must look at it as a bad man, who cares only for the material consequences.” Kardashian seems to align with this approach by exhibiting criminal law’s direct and profound impact on not only the accused but also society at large. For instance, in her podcast The System: The Case of Kevin Keith, Kardashian presents the consequences of capital punishment on multiple levels. The podcast reveals that Keith’s death sentence caused him to enter a depressive state and contemplate suicide. In addition, the podcast discusses that the implementation of the death penalty results in racial discrepancies. Thus, by highlighting the impacts of capital punishment rather than the theories behind it, Kardashian’s content aligns with the legal realist principle that laws must be understood in terms of their tangible consequences.

However, although Kardashian exhibits criminal law’s material consequences, her content often conflates law and morality. Specifically, in her advocation for those on death row, she frequently emphasizes her belief in the individual’s innocence and the unfairness of subjecting innocent people to capital punishment. For instance, Kardashian tweeted, “[W]e should not be okay with the risk that an innocent person could be executed. I hope we can turn toward better solutions that focus more on healing victims of trauma and prioritizing fairness and justice.” Although this tweet indicates some consideration of law’s tangible consequences, Kardashian’s emphasis on innocence, fairness, and justice sends a clear message: Punishment of the innocent is unfair, and the law should uphold this moral notion.

Moreover, Kardashian’s content reflects the legal realist principle that judicial decisions are not the product of logical reasoning but rather the result of a complex interaction of factors including personal motivations and biases. Felix S. Cohen, a prominent legal realist, focuses on the potential impact of judge’s backgrounds on their decisions and writes, “There is at present no publication showing the political, economic, and professional background and activities of our various judges…Such a reference work would be exceedingly valuable…[but is not published] because it would be disrespectable.” Similarly, in Kardashian’s The System: The Case of Kevin Keith, she has a conversation with Justice Michael Donnlley of the Supreme Court of Ohio, who explains, “When you have a system that is run by humans, it is very prone to be plagued by the same flaws that all humans share…People value finality…and even the judge that tr[ies] the case become[s] firmly convinced in the truth of what the jury rendered.” Kardashian’s conversation with Justice Donnlley mirrors Cohen’s view on judicial subjectivity, underscoring that personal bias and human elements can shape legal outcomes.

While analyzing the intersection between Kim Kardashian’s criminal content and legal realism is an interesting intellectual exercise, it also could have profound implications on public conception of the legal system. Kardashian’s focus on real-world implications of criminal laws may urge the public to evaluate laws based on their practical effects, but this effort is somewhat undermined by her conflation of law and morality. Specifically, by suggesting that law should uphold the moral notion that punishment of the innocent is unfair, Kardashian’s content could hinder the public’s ability to critically assess criminal laws. For instance, Kardashian’s content may guide the public to question whether the capital punishment is just given the possibility innocent individuals may be sentenced to death. However, the more functional consideration is whether the tangible consequences of capital punishment—as exercised on both innocent and guilty individuals—warrants criticism. Furthermore, Kardashian’s recognition of judicial subjectivity may encourage the public to view judges not as pillars of objectivity and logic but rather as humans with their own sets of experiences, beliefs, and prejudices. This perspective could produce calls for greater transparency and scrutiny in judicial decision-making. All in all, Kim Kardashian’s criminal justice content prompts public contemplation of the mechanisms of the legal system, potentially reshaping how society perceives and interacts with law.

Paper Title: Reality TV Meets Legal Realism: Kim Kardashian’s Criminal Justice Content and Legal Realist Principles

Principle 1: Law must be understood through its material consequences and cannot be conflated with morality.

Kardashians's content exhibits criminal law’s tangible consequences.

However, her content tends to conflate law and morality.

Principle 2: Judges are human actors susceptible to social prejudices.

Kardashian's content reflects that personal bias can affect judicial outcomes.

Principle 2: Judges are human actors susceptible to social prejudices.

Potential implications of the intersection of Kardashian's content and legal realism on the public's understanding of the legal system.

Kardashians's conflation of law and morality could guide the public to assess criminal laws in an abstract, ineffective manner.

Kardashians's presentation of judicial subjective could generate awareness regarding the need for greater judicial transparency and scrutiny.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrennaDugel
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, BrennaDugel
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.