The contemporary theory evolved from a collaboration of Hart’s work in 1961 The Concept of Law and Austin’s command theory, creating a “…more precise and informative explanation of law… and providing a closer analysis of rules” (Tebbit, 2005, p. 49). With that said, the importance of contemporary theory is to solve hard cases and to close a case with a fair verdict. But how is it possible for a Judge to make a decision based on the law in “hard cases” when the law has “furry edges” when applied to certain situations? Austin believed when cases were presented to the court with no clear precedent, the judge then became a “temporary commander” (Tebbit, 2005, p. 50). Hart believed that no matter how well a law is drafted, rules cannot cover every eventuality. Dworkin believed a rule could or could not be applied to a specific case, but a “constellation of principles” and as well as rules together could lead a Judge to make a decision (Tebbit, 2005, p. 54). To me, Dworkin’s constellation of principles and idea of legality, and Hart’s degree of discretion seems realistic when making a verdict for any case, especially hard cases; Dworkin’s ideology explains how the law is being applied while, Hart focuses on what exactly the law is.
In the case involving Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and his opinion on gay marriage similar to that of Kim Davis, he was accused of “violating judicial ethics” when he ordered other local judges to not oblige to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage (Chappel, 2016, p. 1). Due to the fact that there was not just one specific rule that existed which applied to this case, Chief Justice Moore’s lawyer, Mathew Staver, “…argued that the conflicting state and federal orders had thus remained an uns...
... middle of paper ...
...ation of principle and legal principle along with Hart’s degree of discretion shows that “nearly all rules lack certainty in their range of reference” (Tebbit, 2005, p. 50).
In the end, what matters is how the law is being applied depending on the case, the seriousness of the case, and the existing rules, which is all taken into consideration to make a fair judicial decision based entirely on the law. When a judicial decision is made, one particular law should not be applied to the case. Instead, various laws that are similar should be taken into consideration to analyze which law “best fits” the case. The fact that nearly all rules are not clear and that judges are entitled to make decisions when there is no clear judicial precedent is why the judge who decides the final judgement should follow Dworkin’s constellation of principles and Hart’s degree of discretion.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations.
In order to understand whether judges would be better at making decisions if they were more truthful, if is essential that an examination of the manner in which they decide cases is undertaken. Many judges will decide based on their own personal back ground. For example, if the judge had a clash in the past with a member of a different race that might play a role in the decision making process. Judicial impartiality is a fundamental characterized in a legal system under the rule of law. The law against bias together with the right to be heard from the principles of natural justice. Judicial proceedings must follow stricter procedural requirements. Implying that proceedings must be similar to those followed in court proceedings. If the requirement is not followed, the decision could be invalidated by a court if it is challenged. Plea bargaining in the United States is controversial issue because the practice of plea bargaining is necessary as long as the United States has high crime rates and facilities for cases. Plea bargaining allows the flexibility necessary if the system is to respond with any degree of concern for the circumstances of individual cases, however, it may also entice defendants to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit rather than risk their constitutional right to
Legal codes in the judicial system is the key distinction between the civil law and common law tradition. It is the supreme source of justice in a society and is meant to provide the common good for a society. Whether or not a country is governed by a civil or common law code greatly influences the role of the judiciary system. Including the presence and role of judicial review. Given these points, civil law clashes with the theory of individualism, therefore this tradition could not work in the American system. Civil law is markedly inflexible because it is difficult to update common law to change with the times. Until relevant criminal charges are laid out or relevant civil action is initiated, there is not an opportunity for these laws and precedents to be changed.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
"The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Wake of Romer v. Evans ." New
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
Introduction This submission will discuss the problems created by the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent and will attempt to find solutions to them. Whereas, English Law has formed over some 900 years it was not until the middle of the 19th Century that the modern Doctrine was ‘reaffirmed’. London Tramways Co. Ltd V London County Council (1898). Law is open to interpretation, all decisions made since the birth of the English Legal System, have had some form of impact whether it is beneficial or not The term ‘Judicial Precedent’ has at least two meanings, one of which is the process where Judges will follow the decisions of previously decided cases, the other is what is known as an ‘Original Precedent’ that is a case that creates and applies a new rule. Precedents are to be found in Law Reports and are divided up into ‘Binding’ and ‘Persuasive’.
Ronald Dworkin has become one of the most influential legal philosophers over the last century providing a ‘sophisticated alternative to legal positivism’. Dworkin is a non-orthodox natural law theorist, his account of law centres on his theory of adjudication. A key aspect of adjudication is the concept of Law as Integrity. However, some commentators suggest that Dworkin’s ideal does not reflect the reality of judicial interpretation. In this paper I will outline Dworkin’s ‘law as integrity’ and then highlight some of the criticisms that appear to generate doubt over his writings as a convincing model. I will conclude that whilst his main opponents offer some substantial critiques of Dworkin’s theory of ‘law as integrity’, Dworkin does establish a convincing theory that tries to bridge the gap on judicial discretion that other notable theorists, including H.L.A. Hart, fail to achieve.
1.The strict supremacy of statute over judicial decisions and a tradition of literalism in statutory interpretation, 2. Where no legislation exists, the courts are bound by the doctrine of precedent in accordance with a strict hierarchy of judicial authority, 3. In the absence of a relevant precedent, the judges will be guided by legal principle and reasoning by analogy, and 4. There is clear way of distinguishing the ratio of a case…
The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.