Principle of Stare Decisis.docx

Principle of Stare Decisis.docx - Principle of Stare...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

Principle of Stare Decisis Initial issues brought up in a court setting starts precedence for future cases; therefore, judges must review previous arguments and consider the decision that was made in other like cases. The Latin term stare decisis means that the decision should remain the same. However, the phrase, “ Stare decisis is not an inexorable command” explains every issue is not set in stone, but the decision must maintain integrity in the law while having sufficient evidence if a decision goes against a previous case (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017). Due to changes over a period of time, no law should be unyielding or remain unadulterated because of the changes in society such as technology, social behaviors, and social institutions. Effect of Inexorable Command Inevitably, inappropriate social behaviors led legislators to make biting someone with your teeth simple assault; whereas, biting them with dentures will result in a charge of aggravated assault in the state of Louisiana (Atkinson, 2008). Personally, biting with dentures should be the lesser charge because less damage can occur if the individual pulls away removing the dentures from the person’s mouth. The mentioned law needs revision or removed from the state’s statutes. Frivolous laws will cause overcrowding in the state’s penal system if citizens are unable to pay the fines imposed by the judicial system. Higher Court Jurisdiction The judicial system is made up of a hierarchy of courts. The authority is needed to keep the legal system running efficiently because the lower courts are binding to the precedents of the higher courts. The higher court should adhere to the doctrine of stare decisis because the court has the authority to make an independent decision if a case’s facts are not similar to previous cases heard (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017). Case Comparison In the case of Payne v. Tennessee, the court upheld the decision of the lower court because it did not violate Payne’s Eighth Amendment to have the victim’s family
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

members to testify during the sentencing phase of a murder trial. Precedence had been set in previous cases that allowed non-family members to provide testimony; therefore, why should Payne’s situation be any different (Schmalleger & Hall, 2017).
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.
  • Fall '17
  • Law, Statutory rape, Hooker Chemical Company, Higher court, rape laws, inexorable command, case comparison, youth sex offenders

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern