The Path of the Law: Pocket Collector's Edition

by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

In the classic essay by the brilliant Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., he delivers his interpretation on what the law ought to be versus what the law is and looked at the law through the lens of the "bad man." More specifically the law should be defined as a prediction of how the courts behave. "The Path of the Law" by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was originally published in the "Harvard Law Review" in 1897. Holmes served on the United States Supreme Court as Associate Justice from 1902 to 1932.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Classics, History, College, Politics

48 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1897

About the author

American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior, son of Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr., served as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932; many of his opinions greatly influenced the American concept of law. Noted for his long service, his concise and pithy opinions, and his deference to the decisions of elected legislatures, he is one of the most widely cited Supreme Court justices in history, particularly for his "clear and present danger" majority opinion in the case of Schenck v. United States (1919), as well as one of the most influential American common-law judges.

Reviews

[Rachel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is actually a Law Review article that must have been published in book format later. I found it on Dailylit.com - a website that e-mails you segments of books everyday so you can read a book even if you don't think you have time. They have a ton of old classics for free (because they are now in the public domain) but new books you can purchase to read. I chose to read this one as my first book because it was short (only 10 installments) and I thought that would be a good way to try the website out. It wasn't until I got the first installment that I realized it was really just a Law Review article - I'm not sure why this disappointed me - maybe its because I work with Law Review articles every day.

Anyway, the article was fine- just your typical hard to read theory based explanation of the law that doesn't really get you anywhere. It was like Holmes was just talking to himself - I'm not quite sure what the point was. I mean, he talked about how people should separate morality from the law (meaning that we shouldn't think in moral terms when we are thinking about law - not that the law shouldn't espouse moral values) and he talked about how history shapes the law (meaning often the seemingly pointless and arbitrary laws are really leftovers from old old laws used to have meaning and significant purpose but don't anymore - and he questioned the sense in doing that). It's all legal theory, but he only breifly touches on any substantial legal theory and does so by example only. It's like the theory of theory of law.

Hey, I know what he wrote is really smart - but I'm just not into THAT MUCH theory.

[Anubhav Kumar · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Path of Law is an important essay for any law student or a lawyer written by US Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. It takes us to a philosophical ride about what law is, what legal duty is, how the bad man sees the law, how law is predicting the court and the dilemma of ethics and moral,theory and practical approach of law. It's a very short book more like a research paper where you will find ideas of American realism evidently

[Miles Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

A small but interesting work. Holmes is worth reading if for no other reasons than he displays the best AND worst of the United States’ intellectual presuppositions in the height of the Progressive Era.

[Rev. Ben Clements · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'd give the book a 5 star review if it was easier to read. But, I wouldn't change a thing about it. There's a beautiful aspect to the history of language, philosophy, justice, juris prudence, law, and the practice of each.

[Miłosz Kozikowski · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bardzo ciekawie jest spojrzeć na prawo z perspektywy. Holmes uważa, że prawo to profesja o wyraźnie określonych granicach, skończony zbiór dogmatów; przez nie rozumie przewidywanie, co faktycznie zadecyduje sąd, a nie coś bardziej abstrakcyjnego. Wyrzeka się wszelkich słów o konotacjach moralnych i chce stosować nowe, jako nieskażone niczym zewnętrznym nośniki idei prawnych.

Holmes porusza istotny punkt widzenia – spojrzenie od strony „złego człowieka”. To dla niego prawo jest konstruowane. Zauważa, że jeżeli przyjmiemy punkt widzenia „naszego starego znajomego, złego człowieka”, zauważymy, że nie dałby on złamanego grosza za aksjomaty ani dedukcje, ale bardzo chciałby wiedzieć, co rzeczywiście sądy w Massachusetts lub w Anglii najprawdopodobniej zrobią.

Holmes zwraca uwagę na bardzo ciekawy punkt odniesienia – przyzwyczajenie opinii publicznej. Uważa, że wielka część naszych praw może zostać zinterpretowana na nowo w wyniku najdrobniejszej zmiany przyzwyczajeń opinii publicznej. Społeczeństwo zmienia się szybciej niż prawo, dlatego prawo musi być nieustannie zmieniane.

Zdaniem Holmesa prawo jest instrumentem do osiągania określonych celów społecznych, dlatego powinno być oceniane z punktu widzenia skuteczności w ich osiąganiu. Co ciekawe, wysuwa teorię, że to nie natura popełnionej zbrodni, ale zagrożenie, które niesie ze sobą zbrodniarz stanowi jedyne zasadne kryterium prawne, które może rozstrzygnąć o nieuniknionej reakcji społecznej przeciw przestępcy. Zdaje się więc nie wierzyć w wagę sprawiedliwości działającej w imię zasady „oko za oko”.

Holmes na koniec, co ciekawe, dzieli się swoimi głębszymi przemyśleniami, mówiąc o obietnicy uniwersalnego prawa; wybiega w przyszłość, chcąc doradzić dobry wybór życiowej ścieżki:
Szczęścia nie zdobywa się tylko doradzając wielkim korporacjom i zarabiając pięćdziesiąt tysięcy dolarów rocznie. Umysł dość wybitny by osiągać takie szczyty łaknie też pokarmu innego niż sukces. To abstrakcyjne i ogólne aspekty prawa czynią je tak uniwersalnie interesującym. To ze względu na nie, nie tylko mistrzowsko spełniamy swoje powołanie, ale też łączymy nasze rozważania z kwestiami wyższymi i dostrzegamy zarys nieskończoności, błysk tego co niezgłębione, obietnicę uniwersalnego prawa.

[Eduardo Restrepo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Luego de terminar este texto que a primeras vista nos parece contradictorio, no puedo sino maravillarme del genio de Oliver Wendell Holmes. Sin saber si me encuentro de acuerdo con las mas importantes ideas de este libro, es imposible no apreciar su claridad y belleza estilística. Solo un gran filosofo del Derecho estadounidense puede al mismo tipo vender la idea de que el ejercicio de la profesión jurídica no es mas que un calculo predictivo de las decisiones de los jueces y sin contradecirse alegar que no hay mejor inversion para el joven jurista que adentrarse en las lagunas de la teoría y no en la practica cuando iniciamos los estudios en esta bella disciplina.

[Bethany · Rating 4 out of 5]

Unconvinced by Holmes' argument that the study of Roman law is of little use but that the second stage of mastering the law is to learn its history.
Also seemingly a shifting purpose from jurisprudential to educative

[Guillermo Oliver González · Rating 3 out of 5]

Aún vigente, en parte. Breve pero funge como buen repaso. Se visita la función del Derecho, su confusión con la moral así como el papel y forma de resolver y aplicar el Derecho por parte de los jueces y abogados. No tan recomendado.

[John Yelverton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well done piece about the role of law in our society and the need for judges and lawyers to properly handle that law. I don't agree with everything he says here, but I agree with enough to know more people in our legal profession need to read this book.

[Joe Beery · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important, but not world changing.

[Ramiro · Rating 5 out of 5]

“The law can ask no better justification than the deepest instincts of man.”

[Finn Carothers · Rating 4 out of 5]

“The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact, and nothing more pretentious, are what I mean by law.”

“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 which such knowledge enable him to predict…”

[Tyler Storm · Rating 4 out of 5]

giving it this rating because I know how transformational and paramount this speech was in the 1800s.

However, gave it 4 because it was hard as hell to understand. I had to consult a lot of resources on the world wide web to understand it. Still a great speech. Mr. Holmes is a genius.

[Lenka Kyselova · Rating 5 out of 5]

And happiness, I am sure from having known many successful men, cannot be won simply by being counsel for great corporations and having an income of fifty thousand dollars. An intellect great enough to win the prize needs other food besides success.

[Bartlett · Rating 3 out of 5]

...

[Vern · Rating 4 out of 5]

Stimulating. As I've not read anything else of the like, I can make no comparison of the subject matter. However, if/when I read other treatises on law, I'm sure I'll refer to this pamphlet.

[Aaron Crofut · Rating 2 out of 5]

Eh, forgettable.

[Nathaniel White · Rating 4 out of 5]

Big Words

I'm a too stupid to read this.

Amazon required thirteen more words to complete this honest review. These are they.

[La-Shanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are planning to go to Law school, this is a must read...

[Rafael Parisi Abdouch · Rating 5 out of 5]

Em "The Path of Law" (traduzo livremente como "O caminho do direito"), Holmes demonstra o cerne do movimento que viria a ser denominado de realismo jurídico norte-americano, insurgindo-se, de um lado, contra uma visão moralista (ou jusnaturalista, como querem alguns) do direito e, de outro, contra o formalismo lógico-jurídico. O direito é visto, à moda do que acontece em todos os movimentos que se denominam positivistas (ou de matriz positivista), como um fato do mundo, no caso, constatável por meio da aferição das decisões judiciais e do comportamento dos juízes. Para saber o que é o direito, deve-se colocar na perspectiva do homem mau, violador da lei. Para ele (o homem mau), o que importará serão as consequências sancionatórias que poderão advir de sua conduta violadora, ou, como será o mais preciso que se pode chegar de antmemão, a possibilidade (ou probabilidade) das sanções a serem-lhe aplicadas. O direito que realmente importa, para Holmes, é, portanto, o que é constituído nos tribunais. É inegável o impacto que esta obra teve - e tem - sobre o direito, especialmente nos Estados Unidos, ainda que várias dificuldades e imprecisões tenham sido apontadas posteriormente.