Thursday, September 10, 2009

Stare Decisis: Hypocrisy or Justice?

My understanding of the concept "stare decisis," according to the text (p.55-58), is: future decisions bound to the governing of consistent prior decisions, or, more simply, precedent. Specifically, precedent is "the influence of prior cases on current cases;" moreover, stare decisis binds some judges and courts to "let the decision stand," just as it means in Latin.

I struggle with my opinion of stare decisis on both principle and practice.

I do agree that a judicial body should be able to alter or reverse a previous decision based on new information or circumstances. Note, though, that I do not commend making a practice of such changes as it would be highly harmful to the law and therefore society.

Conversely, my own sense of justice screams, "That's not fair!!" I have argued far too many times against the hypocrisy of double standards and unequal treatment to now become an advocate of such a weak, unbalanced, and irregular form of justice.

So where is the middle ground between such justice and hypocrisy? Should a decision made hundreds of years ago still be applied to cases today, despite the thousands of differences between the two worlds in which they were made? Should a just decision, under no circumstances, ever be threatened by reversal? How do we know when a practiced precedent is no longer just?

As usual, it all comes down to the details. Change is innate to human nature with the passing of time and should be accounted for in all aspects of law and justice. As our understanding of criminal motive develops, so should the sentencing for such criminals, while giving careful thought to the principles and ratio decendi for the original precedent. Even in a rapidly changing world, some decisions stand the test of time as true precedents for humanity.

I am still shaky on the details of the practice of stare decisis. I know, though, that there are cases in which I find it most effective and just, such as Brown v Board of Education and Wolf v. Colorado. On the other hand, I live in fear of such decisions as Hernandez v Texas and Roe v Wade being overruled at any time, near or far, in the future.

Overall, I have decided that I am a proponent of stare decisis and a fearer of its abuse. Long live hypocrisy, if only it serve justice.

http://courtoons.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/stare-decisis2.jpg

2 comments: