How would you explain or describe common law, stare decisis and the use of precedence in the United States? What do you think about the power of the courts under this system? What are the pros and cons (good and bad) aspects of this type of legal system?
Common Law is the laws that developed from English court decisions and customs and that form the basis of laws in the U.S. Stare decisis distinguishes the common law from the civil-law system. It gives a great weight to the code of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. In other words, common law is also known as stare decisis. In the principle of stare decisis it isn’t always applied with uniform strictness. The Stare decisis is not usually use in the civil law system because …show more content…
I believe that this system is undemocratic. A drawback to this is that over time is that a law maybe no longer found applicable or a new decision has been found but can be undesirable. This drawback is common in two ways: 1. The ruling of the court case, 2. Sentencing or judicial decision of the case. Another reasons why I don’t really agree with this system because maybe previous decisions by judges don’t necessarily embody the law. This legal system isn’t really a good system because the judges look at the cases and see that they are similar to a previous one and just gives the same verdict as the last one but you are able to provide other facts and show other wise and they don’t look at it just because you had a similar case like another one. It’s like you’re not really getting the right sentencing or judicial decision to your case that you brought. People may that it’s a good system because it helps judges save time and energy but are they treating everyone fairly to the Constitution. I think people who are loyal and obeys the Constitution are more important than people who are not loyal to the unconstitutional …show more content…
It also saves time and energy of judges so they don’t have to determine the same question of law over and over again since it has been settled once already. If the legislature wants to alter the case law by statute, the legislature is empowered to do so. It is flexible in the law and how it is being shaped according to the social, economic and other circumstances. Some cons of this type of legal would be that it is undemocratic, how it allows unelected judges to make the law. It is not mandated by the Constitution so it may result in unconstitutional results, so it maybe abled to get reexamined. Some judges are accused in applying the doctrine selectively, by invoking to support precedents which they do support anyway but ignoring it in order to change precedents with the one the judge disagreed with. Another con is that the doctrine of binding precedent can prevent the development of a
Common Law is the laws that developed from English court decisions and customs and that form the basis of laws in the U.S. Stare decisis distinguishes the common law from the civil-law system. It gives a great weight to the code of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. In other words, common law is also known as stare decisis. In the principle of stare decisis it isn’t always applied with uniform strictness. The Stare decisis is not usually use in the civil law system because …show more content…
I believe that this system is undemocratic. A drawback to this is that over time is that a law maybe no longer found applicable or a new decision has been found but can be undesirable. This drawback is common in two ways: 1. The ruling of the court case, 2. Sentencing or judicial decision of the case. Another reasons why I don’t really agree with this system because maybe previous decisions by judges don’t necessarily embody the law. This legal system isn’t really a good system because the judges look at the cases and see that they are similar to a previous one and just gives the same verdict as the last one but you are able to provide other facts and show other wise and they don’t look at it just because you had a similar case like another one. It’s like you’re not really getting the right sentencing or judicial decision to your case that you brought. People may that it’s a good system because it helps judges save time and energy but are they treating everyone fairly to the Constitution. I think people who are loyal and obeys the Constitution are more important than people who are not loyal to the unconstitutional …show more content…
It also saves time and energy of judges so they don’t have to determine the same question of law over and over again since it has been settled once already. If the legislature wants to alter the case law by statute, the legislature is empowered to do so. It is flexible in the law and how it is being shaped according to the social, economic and other circumstances. Some cons of this type of legal would be that it is undemocratic, how it allows unelected judges to make the law. It is not mandated by the Constitution so it may result in unconstitutional results, so it maybe abled to get reexamined. Some judges are accused in applying the doctrine selectively, by invoking to support precedents which they do support anyway but ignoring it in order to change precedents with the one the judge disagreed with. Another con is that the doctrine of binding precedent can prevent the development of a