Reasoning from case to case may hold imperfections but what change would then occur in society if everyone followed the law as written? In order for the laws to be better efficient there should be well rounded people available to interpret or adhere to the law as is. However, if reasoning from case to case is an imperfection than solely adhering to the law is an imperfection as well. This is because it is possible that by completely adhering to the law you may ignore something circumstantial to the case and make the wrong judgement.
Personally I think that in order for the laws to be efficient there should be a balance of both kind of decision making. However I think it imperative that whoever is making the decision knows when, why and how they came to their decision.
Which method do you think could lead to a better decision; following the law as is or having the ability to interpret the law for specific situations?
I think the intricacies of our judicial system in the United States allows judges to rely on precedent, and in some cases, deem the situation to require a different ruling, or even, set a new precedent that overturns the previous one.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dom, I do not believe there is one better decision than the other. Precedents are set and made so judges can have a rule to be able to base their decisions off of. If there was no precedent in law and we just left it up to interpretation, each case or ruling would become a mess. So we should not look at them as separate. Precedents must be set in order for judges to interpret them for each new case, or like Dom said, even sometimes change them for the better as time goes by.
ReplyDeleteI think the ability to interpret the law for specific situations is a better decision than the other, because it allows for you to either, to use the law as is, or change it as you think the case needs to be considered. This is something that we have discussed in class as being one of the good features of law. The ability to interpret gives laws a longevity that they would not have if they were only used in the confines of their text. Although if laws were interpreted strictly many more people who were guilty would not get free, many people who were innocent might also be imprisoned. So the ability is greater than the absence of it.
ReplyDelete