How stare decisis influence the decision-making process of judges

Full Answer Section

        Problem 1: GreenThumb Organic Fertilizer Company Requirement 1: Total Required Production

1. Calculate July Sales: 270,000 units
2. Calculate August Sales: 270,000 * 1.04 = 280,800 units
3. Calculate September Sales: 280,800 * 1.04 = 291,632 units
4. Calculate Desired Ending Inventory:
   • July: 280,800 * 0.75 = 210,600 units
   • August: 291,632 * 0.75 = 218,724 units
   • September: 0 (since we're looking at the end of the period)

Advantages of Adhering to Precedents:

• Predictability and Certainty: Knowing how similar cases have been decided in the past allows parties to anticipate the outcome of their own cases, fostering predictability and stability in the legal system.
• Efficiency: Judges can rely on past decisions to guide their reasoning, saving time and resources needed to re-evaluate established legal principles.
• Fairness and Equality: Applying similar rules to similar cases ensures that all parties are treated equally under the law.
• Respect for the Rule of Law: Adhering to precedents demonstrates respect for the decisions of prior judges and reinforces the concept of judicial restraint.

Disadvantages of Adhering Strictly to Precedents:

• Rigidity and Inflexibility: When societal values, technology, or understanding of legal principles change, strict adherence to precedent can result in outdated or unjust rulings.
• Inability to Address Emerging Issues: Existing legal frameworks may not adequately address new technologies, social challenges, or evolving human rights issues.
• Perpetuation of Errors: If a precedent was wrongly decided initially, adhering to it can perpetuate that error, potentially leading to an unfair or inefficient system.

Circumstances for Deviating from Precedent: Courts may deviate from precedent in certain circumstances:

• Distinguishable Facts: If the current case has significantly different facts than the precedent case, the court may find that the precedent does not apply.
• Overruling Precedent: Courts can overturn their own precedents if they find the reasoning behind the prior decision was incorrect or no longer reflects current societal values or legal principles.
• Evolving Legal Principles: When a legal principle has evolved over time, courts may need to reconsider prior decisions in light of the new understanding.
• Fundamental Rights: Courts are more likely to deviate from precedent when fundamental rights, such as freedom of speech or due process, are at stake.

Impacts of Deviating from Precedent: Deviating from precedent can have significant impacts:

• Uncertainty: It can create uncertainty for parties and legal professionals as they may not be able to confidently predict the outcome of similar cases.
• Increased Litigation: Parties may be more likely to challenge existing precedents, leading to increased litigation and court congestion.
• Erosion of Public Trust: Frequent changes in the law can erode public trust in the judicial system.

Balancing Consistency and Flexibility: The challenge for judges is finding the right balance between maintaining consistency and stability while remaining flexible enough to adapt to changing circumstances. This requires careful consideration of the precedent's reasoning, the evolution of relevant legal principles, and the impact of potential deviations on the legal system as a whole.  

Sample Answer

       

Stare Decisis and Judicial Decision-Making

Stare decisis, Latin for "to stand by things decided," is a fundamental principle in common law systems. It dictates that judges should follow precedents set by previous decisions in similar cases. This principle promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness in the application of the law.

Influence on Lower and Higher Courts:

• Lower Courts: Lower courts are bound by the decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction. This ensures that the law is applied uniformly throughout the system. Judges in lower courts must follow precedents set by appellate courts, even if they personally disagree with the reasoning.

• Higher Courts: Higher courts, like appellate courts and supreme courts, have more flexibility. They can overturn their own precedents if they believe the previous decision was incorrect or no longer applicable in light of changed circumstances. However, they are hesitant to do so, recognizing the importance of consistency and stability.