The common law legal principle that binds many countries, especially those that have embrace the common law legal system is the principle of precedent, which means to stand by things decided, (stare decisis). Stare decisis on the other hand entails the landmark whereby decisions made in previous cases are used to determine decisions of subsequent case that entail similar problems or facts. Legal precedent is a formal way of practice, which makes the legal system predictable, stable and consistent. It also puts some order in the legal profession so that the judges do not formulate the law anew each time. This article examines the meaning of precedence, current laws and issues relating to judicial system.
What is Precedent?
Stare decisis is a legal principle which compels a court to observe the decisions made by other apex cases or other courts of similar jurisdiction whenever presented with the same legal concerns. They occur when the court sets a new case law and it has the potential of setting a new legal rule of practice or it explains a commonly accepted legal rule of law. Future similar fact or issue based cases should follow this decision unless a higher court reverses the decision or another court departs based on the difference in facts between the new case and this one.
There are two types of precedents in the judicial system: hard kternalites and soft kternalites.
Binding Precedent: A binding precedent is one which lower court is expected to follow since it has been developed by a superior court within the same legal system. For instance, lower federal courts of the United States are bound by the U. S Supreme Court decisions while lower state courts are bound by decisions made by state Supreme court. Stakeholders use binding precedents to guarantee consistency with a certain legal system.
Persuasive Precedent: Of persuasive authority is a legal precedent that a court can turn to when reaching its decision but is not legally bound to. Common source of persuasive precedents is other courts that are in a different state, court of lower level or even the same level. For instance, a U. S court may get information from England or Canada courts since the first will not have definitive answer to a particular legal topic. These decisions can be helpful to a judge in forming a decision; nevertheless, a judge is under no obligation to follow a decision he or she may consider to be unconvincing or unrelated to a particular case.
Traditional and Emerging Roles of Judges in the Judicial System
There are several important roles that precedent plays in the context of the judicial procedure and, thus, on the overall functionality of the justice system.
1. Legal Consistency and Predictability
The most significant weightage of precedent is that it contributes greatly to stability of the legal system. Court retain legal principles to reduce the chances of bias and arbitrary decision making because similar cases should be handled the same way. This gives people and companies the ability to trust the legal system because they can knowledgeable assume how a court will handle a particular case or issue.
For instance, in contract law, there are many authorities which are used to find out, whether there exists a legal partnership or not, what a violation means, and the sanctions for such violation are. In following these precedents courts are able to address the fair and equitable distribution of contractual remedies with parties involved in the contractual dispute.
2. Cost effective in relation to the litigation procedure
That is why, precedent also contributes positively to the effectiveness of the functioning of the judicial system because once a decision is made, it is difficult to reverse keeping in mind that the law is known to progress gradually. As opposed to having to reason every case from the start, there are existing decided cases that a court of law needs to employ in solving legal controversies. This enables the judges to work with a set legal principles that has to be applied each case rather than coming up with new legal principles for each case.
Further, because the law is already defined in previous cases, one can easily find out rules and arguments, which, in turn, save a lot of time. This efficiency is in favor of both the courts and the parties in the legal disputes since some of the cases take a shorter time to be solved.
3. Development of the Law
Reason permits the shaping of the law incrementally and over time. By they way courts get a chance of enhancing their skills and development of the common law as new cases are presented before them. It is important for the evolution of the law because it helps the law to adapt to the changes that are happening in the society, advance technology and the new legal developments.
For example, in privacy law, there are legal rules in courts that have been adopted in accordance with the new technologies in use such as the internet, smart phones and social media. While some of the first legal controversies of privacy might have concerned physical invasions, various appeals have been made into the body of law to accommodate newer forms of violations such as data theft, stalking, cyber bullying among others. In this manner, judgments made by the courts can be based on prior decisions while the law is established to fit today’s society.
Essentials of Legal Practice 2: How Precedent Determines Current Law
It is noteworthy that the position of the precedent in relation to the current legislation cannot be overestimated. Most of the legal standards that direct operations of modern courts were developed through precedents that have made significant contributions to the court system. The decides mentioned above has the ability to guide the future interpretation of laws through the doctrine of precedent.
1. Jones & Lomena, Charter of Rights: A Source of Legal Protections for Women
In constitutional law, case of institutional decisions of higher courts such as the U. S Supreme Court for the U. S, or the European Court of Human Rights for the member states of the council of Europe has social effects for the whole society. Some of these decisions influence the ability of the courts in interpreting the constitution while others define the rights and the freedoms of persons.
For instance in the United States the case of Brown versus Board of Education (1954) concluded that the discrimination in public school was unlawful. This decision was the reversal of earlier ruling in Plessy v. Ferguson case where it was held that segregation was constitutional as long as equal treatment was offered to the blacks. It also helped to bring about a socio-political shift which triggered the Civil Rights movements and is considered as a hallmark case in the Racial equality in the United States of America.
Like the former one, Roe v. Wade (1973) was a landmark case which acknowledged the constitutional right of a woman for privacy that encompass the right for abortion. The U.S Supreme Court recently overruled Roe in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, (2022), however it is a good illustration of how a precedent, irrespective of the remaking it undergoes, may determine legal standards for forty years.
2. Nowhere seems this trend more significant than in the use of precedents in Lower Courts.
It is also important to state the function lower courts perform in developing the current law as they use the higher courts’ set precedents in solving new cases. Whenever a lower court is bound by the precedent, the court helps in the systemic approach to the law thus enhancing its conformity with the legal principles that are owed to it.
For example in Contract Law there are authorities such as Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.(1893) that helped in ascertaining offer and acceptance in the formation of Contract etc. As you can see, this decision was made in the United Kingdom; nonetheless, it has been used in many other cases concerning the contract and has an enormous impact on the contract law of the entire world.
3. Judicial Interpretation and Adaptation
There is also the aspect of discretionary jurisdiction and control by judges in as much as judicial jurisdictions are guided by precedents. As such, the law is able to remain relevant as it adapts to change in the society. He said that what the judges are likely to do is to differentiate a case from an earlier precedent where they felt there was a basis to do so, given that the facts of the two cases are different in terms of the specifics of the circumstances. Thus, they set new standards, which codify or develop the subsequent legal doctrines.
For instance, in the area of free speech courts have faced the challenge of how to deal with the newer technologies such as what is currently referred to as social media. These are words and actions that are broadcasted online and since speech cases apply free speech doctrines in a modern society that is dominated by the use of the internet and social media, these cases define new doctrines that are used in the handling of such cases.
Difficulties &/or Critiques on Precedent
Precedent is definitely crucial to the efficiency of the legal system since it is geared toward establishing and preserving stability and order, nevertheless is not worthwhile of acclaim and be cost-free of drawbacks.
1. Rigidity and xb is not easy for an organization to change.
Another weakness of the doctrine of precedent is that it rigidities the legal system as it lacks the capacity to apply discre-the legal system as it is unable to apply discretion discrepancies. The judiciary may have the tendency of sticking to certain cases even when it may not serve the society, or is irrelevant in the contemporary society. Such embeddedness of legal institutions can lead to the reinforcement of unfair and/or ineffective legal norms.
For instance, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision supporting the institution of racial segregation was one for more than half a century even as it faced increasing condemnation. The race for equality was not until Brown v. Board of Education, therefore the Doctrine of Precedent was capable of hampering legal change.
2. Judicial Discretion and Uncertainty
While precede offers uniformity the call for interpretation brings some vulnerability in the process. Judicial decisions make room for judges’ discretion to apply precedents in different manners and format; even when at the face of it, two decisions appear the same, they may be interpreted differently by different judges. Such variations can lead to unpredictability in cases leading to uncertainty for the parties involved in a litigation process.
3. The propriety of the exercise of the power to overrule: a problem yet again
That is why a practice of overruling a precedent can accurately correct past mistakes but also results in legal unpredictability and instability. Retrieved from uptut: When higher courts work against established precedents, then the law suffers and there is confusion. On one hand the Dobbs decision where the court overruled Roe v. Wade is a classic example of the provocation of arguments and legal contentiousness.
Conclusion
Stare decisis means a lot to the judicial system, as an important principle that ensures conformity, order, and stability in the administration of justice. In simple terms, through the application of relevant legal concepts, they ensure that where similar issues are in question, similar outcomes are provided to the parties involved, thereby making it easier for people and companies to engage the legal system. However, the doctrine of precedent also have its weaknesses since it allows for some degree of a change and development which is important as the world changes and grows technologically.
Despite numerous benefits of relying on cases, there can occur such drawbacks: the situation might be too rigid, and the decision made on discretion can lead to the creation of doubts. Nevertheless, precedent has not lost its significance in the framework of the legal systems of various countries, and further forms the development of legal norms and determines the approaches to the administration of justice in today’s society.
