Role Of Judges In Democracy

1348 Words3 Pages

What is a democracy? The United Sates president Abraham Lincoln defined democracy as, “Government of the people, by the people, for the people.” (1863). The Oxford dictionary’s definition of democracy states that, “ A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives” (2015). Democracy plays a vital role in our nation. The citizens of the nation vote for who they believe is the best fit for government. The government appoints individuals to take down roles as cabinets and judges. What is the duty of a judge? The definition used by the Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association (CSCJA) states, “Judges play many roles. They interpret the law, assess the evidence presented, …show more content…

Judges could also be considered more powerful than the prime minister or president because it is the Supreme Court that makes laws for the country. Judges have an essential role in democracy by supporting human rights and setting new precedents in controversial cases. However, judges could also be a possible threat towards democracy. Judges could be threats to democracy due to corruption and biased opinions on cases. To sum it up, judges play a vital role in democracy because without judges democracy will not function without them. First of all, judges play an essential role in our democracy, by interpreting the law and being impartial, they make decisions which keeps our country in a democratic state. Judges promote and support charter rights, including freedom and equality. A strong case that proves that judges are an essential part in a democracy is shown in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, John Obergefell was fighting for the legalization of same - sex marriage in The United States. On November 2014, the case went to the supreme court where it caught the attention of the nation. Obergefell was not only fighting for his own rights …show more content…

This is because although they are equipped to make informed, balanced decisions given their extensive judicial experience, external powers or influence can lead to biased rulings made by judges. Overall, judges opinions are neutral, free of bias and made in a professional capacity given the extensive education and experience required to become a judge. The long lasting issue of euthanasia in Canada has been the perfect example of how judges could be shown as both a threat, yet also an essential role to a democracy. What is euthanasia? The Oxford dictionary’s definition states, “The painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma.” (2015). For years, the controversial issue of euthanasia has been shown up in our courts. Before 2015, most cases involving euthanasia resulted in loss. This is where judges were shown as a threat to democracy. Judges were shown as a threat because they did not allow these individuals to have their fundamental human rights. If an individual has the right to live they should have the right to die. This was all changed on February, 6th 2015, with the case of Carter v. Canada when, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Canadian Criminal Code prohibitions on voluntary euthanasia (section 14) and assisted suicide (section 241(b)) violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom. This legalized

Open Document