Legalism fails in the face of difficult cases, while consequentialism can start from the social consequences caused by the trial results, and consider social ethics, public opinion and other factors to make the trial results as much as possible in line with the public's moral values. Although consequentialism has certain advantages compared with legalism in handling difficult cases, it should not be arbitrarily enlarged or even blindly pursued. Consequentialism also has limitations in application. Even so, consequentialism can be justified in the aspects of ethics and economic analysis. Except for the influence of the judges' own factor, our country still adopts legalism to reason cases as the mainstream. So to cater to the mainstream legalism, the judges should not implicate their thinking process when they hear cases. In addition, the judge will also be affected by factors outside the case, the judge must learn to "judge the situation" when hearing the case, but the judge cannot inform the public, implicit thinking is the current judge's helpless action.

Wen Zhang. The confrontation between legalism and consequentialism in difficult cases. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology (2023) Vol. 5, Issue 7: 7-12. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2023.050702.

[1] San Benqian. (2004). The Dilemma of Legal Interpretation, Legal Studies, (5), 3. 

[2] Sun Haibo. (2015). The Contest between" Consideration of Consequences "and" Legalism "-- Between the Nightmare and Dream of Legal Method. Legal and Social Development (Bimonthly), (2), 167. 

[3] Su Li. (2009). Legalism, Public Opinion and Difficult Cases. Chinese and Foreign Law, (1), 95. 

[4] Douglas Lind. (1999). Logic, Intuition, and the Positivist Legacy of H. L. A. Hart, SMU Dedman School of Law, (52), 138. 

[5] Chen Rui. (2004). Legalism in Jurisprudence. Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, (4), 3-4. 

[6] Sun Haibo. (2015). The Contest between" Consideration of Consequences "and" Legalism "-- Between the Nightmare and Dream of Legal Method. Legal and Social Development (Bimonthly), (2), 173.

[7] Posner Richard. (2009). How Judges Think. Translated by Su Li. Beijing: Peking University Press. 

[8] Sun Haibo. (2015). Argumentation of Judgment Through Judgment Consequences—A New Theory of Legal Reasoning. Legal Science (Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law), (3), 85. 

[9] Li An. (2013). Intuition and Deviation Control in Judicial Process. Social Sciences in China, (5), 148. 

[10] Shi Meiliang. (2004). The Contradictory Theory of the Role of Judges. Zhejiang Academic Journal, (4), 178.