ipl-logo

Disadvantages Of Judicial Precedents

702 Words3 Pages

No doubt the doctrine of the judicial precedent has proved to be a real advantage to society. However, we cannot neglect the fact that there are some disadvantages associated with this doctrine. 1. The very first disadvantage of this doctrine is the fact that not all the judges will have the same conclusion on a matter; therefore increasing the complexity of a case. Just like human beings differ from each other physically, they also differ mentally. Different judges will have different interpretation of cases; hence, they may bind a single case with various precedents making it more difficult to pass a judgment. In this type of situation even competent judges may find it complicated to decide on the ‘ratio decidendi’. Nevertheless, there are a lot of case laws and deciding which case law best appropriates to a case is not always an easy task, as it is time consuming and very stressful to find the most suitable precedent. Therefore, not only the doctrine of judicial precedent has the disadvantage of being complex, while the judges are discussing which case law to apply to a specific case, justice is at the same time being delayed. …show more content…

Furthermore, another disadvantage of the doctrine of the judicial precedents is injustice. The harsh rules of judicial precedents might create injustice in individual cases. Indeed, law is created basing itself on past experiences, but we should take into consideration that we are unable to build more experiences if the first case is binding. The doctrine of the judicial precedents restricts the development of the law. Since we live in a dynamic world and things are always changing, it is quite of a disadvantage to stick with a law on the experience of yesterday. Lord Denning (Maduka 2010 cited Denning 1979), the most famous English lawyer of the 20th century known as the ‘people’s judge’ argued

Show More
Related

  • The Pros And Cons Of Supreme Court Justices

    219 Words  | 1 Pages

    What is actually happening is allowing Supreme Court justices to serve for life. An article stated that “by making new appointments less frequent, longer tenure has diminished the abilities of presidents and senators to provide the only form of democratic accountability that is consistent with judicial independence,” (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). William Douglas, who has set record for Supreme Court tenure (almost 37 years) who has cast the deciding vote, along with Hugo Black who retired at the age of 85 and Thurgood Marshall who retired at the age of 83. “ I’m getting old and falling apart,” Marshall said on his last day (Jr., Stuart Taylor. ). That’s why it is better to bring fresh perspectives, and especially those people who understand the

    Read More

  • South Carolina Vs Frank Pittman Case Study

    1281 Words  | 6 Pages

    Our appellate courts will be the ones making the policy, while our trail courts will enforce the policy, it appear that many of the lower courts have more discretion when enforcing the appellate court decisions. Why is this possible many are nonlawyers who do not possess the skills needed to read many of complex judicial decisions, and due in part the decisions of the higher courts as well. Many of the policy are available and the judges are anticipated to read them. When the lower court infers the higher courts decision is based upon different factors, such as the judges on personal policy, their background, alternatively the lower court judge will embrace the higher courts decision while others may not.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Neil Gorsuch

    812 Words  | 4 Pages

    The most contentious debate, however, concerns the legal principle of stare decisis. A Latin phrase, stare decisis means that judges should respect legal precedents by letting them stand instead of overturning them. It is important to note, however, that stare decisis is not found in the Constitution or the Bill or Rights; it is not the law of the land, but a “rule of thumb.” As Constitutional lawyer Robert McFarland points out, a number of Democratic congressmen have taken a sudden interest in this legal principle.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Murphy, Marshaling The Court By Khalil Franklin

    941 Words  | 4 Pages

    Thesis: “that judges, if they act rationally, must weigh all the alternatives” [see page 641]. Discussion- analysis of strategies and tactics. Assumptions made by the author; (1) historical role of a free society, has been deeply embedded in the American judiciary, (2) the

    Read More

  • Judicial Branch Pros And Cons

    477 Words  | 2 Pages

    Alexander Hamilton believed that the judicial branch is the least dangerous branch for several reasons. Perhaps Hamilton felt it is the least dangerous of the three branches of government because it does not make the laws as the legislative branch does; it simply interprets the laws that have been passed by the legislative branch and that have been approved by the executive branch. Also, there was little concern that the judiciary might be able to overpower the political branches; since Congress controlled the flow of money and the President the military, courts did not have nearly the same influence from a constitutional design standpoint. The effects of this is that the president and congress do have some control over the judiciary branch with their power to appoint and confirm appointments of judges and justice. Congress also may impeach judges which is very rare, alter the organization of the federal court system, and amend the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Pros And Cons

    694 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this election year a Supreme Court position opened up following the unfortunate death of justice Antonin Scalia. President Obama, has the ability to nominate a replacement as this is one of his presidential powers. Obama nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the Court of Appeals, as Antonin Scalia’s replacement. After the nomination, Merrick Garland can take the position if the senate approve of the nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell vowed to block a hearing that would be held to nominate the nominee.

    Read More

  • Examples Of Australia Not Embed The Bill Of Rights

    1090 Words  | 5 Pages

    In America, judges have become too politicised . The government in power for example could be republican. They might appoint a judge who aligns with their political view and policy, causing that judge to interpret the constitution in such a way that allows the government to get away with something or may change rulings on a right. An example of this polarisation is the famous Bush v Gore case in 2000. In this case, a recount of votes in counties in Florida had not been undertaken, as was required due to the low majority.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

    664 Words  | 3 Pages

    Laws are universal, although they must be applied to particular cases with unique circumstances. In order to do this, judges interpret the law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote it. Presumably, a Justice’s judicial philosophy is at least somewhat associated with his/her political ideology. For instance, if a Justice has conservative beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial restraint”–the theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit (or restrain) the exercise of their own power. Conversely, if a Justice has more liberal beliefs, he/she is more likely to interpret and exercise law with “judicial activism”–the theory of judicial interpretation that is suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law–or simply, broad(-er) interpretation.

    Read More

  • Supreme Court Vs Circuit Court

    965 Words  | 4 Pages

    This model hypothesizes that the judges follow the laws as written, until they are no longer clear. Then, it is each judge’s personal ideology and political attitude that guides them in their decisions. In following this logic, the judges can be, at times, unconstrained by the law and can operate dynamically, depending on who is serving. This can be used as a solid predictor for how each judge will decide.

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Judges Being Appointed

    167 Words  | 1 Pages

    The quality of judges would without a doubt increase if they were appointed. However, I do not agree with the idea of judges being appointed. When looking at the partisan aspect you notice several possible issues with one issue being, is that individual the right person to do the job. Partisan election of judges allows for an individual that may not be as qualified for the job to be elected into the position. Nevertheless the partisan election of judges gives the voters what they want based on party affiliation along with qualifications.

    Read More

  • The Judge's Story: The Supreme Court Case

    673 Words  | 3 Pages

    These precedent valued decisions are used by attorneys in assisting their clients with advice on how to react in situations. Also it assist judges with making upcoming decisions due to the fact they have been in a situation with similar outcomes. A concurring opinion is when the majority of the judges agree on a decision but it is for a dissimilar reason. She or he would prepare a concurring opinion explaining how this outcome was decided.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Punishment

    908 Words  | 4 Pages

    The average person today would most likely accept the barbaric act of execution, as an ordinary part of judicial punishments. It’s approved because those given the sentence are “monsters”, and they’re the only one who suffers from the act. However, those who follow fall under that train of thought are both morally and logically wrong. All bias ideas aside you must take notice of the mass amounts of innocent people sentenced monstrous crimes rather pleading to changes out of fear, or simply being extremely lucky and have fallen under those treacherous circumstances. You could only imagine, the thousands of innocent civilians just like you, killed by our government.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Selection Methods

    462 Words  | 2 Pages

    When people think of a good judge they typically think of somebody who is fair, not bias and has some sort of experience. However, in today’s society, particularly in the United States, our judicial selection methods are not made to select judges on their ability to reason well and rule impartially (Carter and Burke, 6). On top of that, judges have no actual training before they become part of the judiciary. The only training they receive is in school when they are studying the law. Sometimes when they pursue an apprenticeship with a judge they also get a little bit more experience or insight into a judge’s job.

    Read More

  • Thomas Hobbes Acceptance Of International Law

    2404 Words  | 10 Pages

    This view is far from truth in view of the developed and changed character of international law today. It is incorrect to say that international legal system is without a court to decide international disputes. The establishment of the permanent court of international justice has rightly been reckoned as a landmark for the development of international law because though in international legal system was provided with judicial organ to resolve international disputes on the basis of judicial decisions. The greatest proof of its utility and importance is the fact that its successor, the international court of justice is based on the statute of the permanent court of international justice. It is true that the decision of international court of justice is not equivalent to that the municipal courts.

    Read More

  • Importance Of Stare Decisis In Malaysia

    814 Words  | 4 Pages

    Just as in other countries, the law in Malaysia can be found not only in legislation, but also in cases decided by the courts. The courts in question are the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal, and the two High Courts. This is because only decisions of superior courts are sources of law as they are the courts that decide on matters of law whereas lower courts generally discuss on matters of fact. Decisions of the higher courts are binding to the lower courts which is known as stare decisis. Stare decisis is a latin term which means to stand by what has been decided.

    Read More

More about Disadvantages Of Judicial Precedents

Open Document