Legal Research Paper: Stare Decisis

Stare Decisis
Student Name
Institution Affiliation
Stare Decisis
Stare decisis is a Latin word that means ‘to stand by things decided.’ Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that compels courts to refer to historical cases when making rulings. Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios are approached in the same way. The United States common law is built in a unified way with stare decisis at its heart thus making precedent extremely important. Precedent is a prior judgment or ruling. A contemporary case without any past reference may become a precedent when a judge passes a ruling on it. Additionally, any ruling made on a similar present case replaces any precedent that was overruled in another case. The policy of stare decisis dictates that courts are expected to go by previous rulings or rulings made by higher courts in the same system. All US courts are expected to go by the Superior court rulings since it’s the highest court in the system. All decisions made by the Supreme Court become binding precedent to all lower courts.
Historical Analysis
The legal doctrine of stare decisis has been applied to the US court system for a long time. Some authors find traces of it in Bracton. Others state that it originally came from Roman Civil Law. Unlike other ancient doctrines, it is easy to perceive the policies dictating stare decisis. The policies are stability, certainty and uniformit treatment for all defendants. According to American minds, a law system doesn’t have stability and certainty would ultimately be faulty. Without stare decisis, it would be hard for citizens to handle their property or go ahead with their daily business if they could not depend on their knowledge of the principles of law that dictate how they are supposed to act. If the courts were free to settle cases as per the wishes of the judges then they would lose all sense of justice or fairness (Emmert, 2012). The integrity of the judicial system would be compromised and the government would be based on men instead of laws. Stare decisis policies were first wholly established in the second part of the nineteenth century in Britain.
This was when the first semi-official reports were made for future reference. When published reports were made available and lawyers and judges had direct access to cases, they could accurately illuminate prior decisions. The real test of stare decisis arises when a judge is convinced that the policy that dictated the decision made in a previous case is wrong and uses it to rule the case before them. Many cases in American history have had cases of disregard for stare decisis. In an attempt to define the American way of thinking, the renown Daniel H Chamberlain stated that, any decision made by a judge or court concerning the law after an argument is authoritative and should be binding in the same court or lower courts as long as the cases share certain traits but the logic of the presiding tribunal can be affected by the passage of time or existing policies thus making the basis of disregarding any precedent moral and intellectual rather than random or inflexible (Emmert, 2012).
The American law therefore does not dismantle values of previous decisions nor argue that more often than not they can be seen as controlling until authoritatively changed. If then, the precedent binding effect should be fully recognized, the following circumstances are the exceptions. Both American and English courts put an emphasis on precedent and not the reasons given. Additionally, the two court systems also agree that the rule of a court concerning an issue not properly raised before it does not bind as precedent. Decisions must be weighed like any other evidence and depending on: dissenting opinions, cast of first impressions, eminence of judge its importance as a precedent increases or decreases (Emmert, 2012). Furthermore, the weight of a prior decision is greatly affected by the disposition of the issues raised. If the rule applied involves property, trade, business or commerce laws that have long been applied then courts usually hesitate to change it. If the laws in play can be easily altered by the legislative council, then the judicial system will deem the previous law unsatisfactory.
In criminal cases, changes appear as ‘ex post facto’ legislation. That being said, courts often interpret former legislation as part of the statute and rarely change them. In the cases of business affairs, courts are less likely to feel bound by prior decisions. On constitutional law cases, courts are most likely to decline to follow precedent. Judge Robert von Moschzisker also stated in his stare decisis essay that prior decisions can be reversed only when someone proves beyond reasonable doubt that justice was not served. In the same, article he later argues that previous decisions should stand unless the court believes it has become wrong or the circumstances have changed. The most authoritative statements appear in United States Supreme Court late cases where Chief Justice Stone stated that it was the duty of the court to make sure that more harm will not come out of the court’s decision to reject rather than retain precedent (Watford, 2020. To add on that he wrote that, any judgment passed in situations where the decisional errors beat the evil of any innovation must be on the practical grounds and must not compromise policies. Many other suggestions about how the court should approach precedence have been made but all have been politely disregarded. Such suggestions are unfair to the person who demands certainty.
Sole protection against the power of being overruled can only be found in the court’s self-restraint. The court must weigh the evidence provided in. The unavoidable difficulty is that different judges have different ways of thinking. In situations where decisions are based on the evidence provided and law, judges are likely to take different stands. Many decisions to overrule precedent have been on issues concerning the constitution. In a number of situations, the courts decided to extend federal power or strike down limitations upon the power of state. These types of cases promote special justification for blatant disregard of rules (Watford, 2020). However, constitutional revision is a complex thing that requires a couple of years for its accomplishment. It is also extremely irresolute if a change can be instituted by legislative actions. A civilization that is anxious for any kind of social change is unlikely to wait for a long time to take legal action. Any form of government that has existed for a long while should be flexible enough to accept the process of change and growth.
Fortunately, the United States government permits growth by overruling previous constitutional decisions. Unfortunately, overruling decisions under present legal theories has retroactive effects. Parties which initially relied on the law suddenly find it changed. Actions that may have been legal turn out to be illegal. The courts can safeguard each other against such injustice by either changing their stand or declaring that any decision made is evidence of the law and a change of decision means a change in the law. Courts can also declare that the changes should not have retroactive effects. It is important to note that the decisions which have been reached on stare decisis may not satisfy one who seeks certainty. Some courts even go ahead and state that their current policies are not dictated by prior decisions (Watford, 2020). The tendency of some courts to throw of precedence has alarmed bar members who believe any legal system should be stable. Many people have suggested that the root cause for the disregard of precedence is increase in judicial decisions. Multiple precedents have the same effect on laws as inflation has on the dollar value. In our current era, conceptions which seem established or fundamental have been modified, questioned or discarded thus leading to social and political change. Nowadays, there is no longer a general agreement even among the bar members as there were in the past. In the past decade, such changes have occurred in the Supreme Court, Federal courts and some of the state courts. A change in any law is simply a reflection of the thinking of many citizens. As such, it is difficult to show when the doctrine of stare decisis is being violated (Macey, 2020).
If one were to judge based on court opinions, there is no likely change in the stare decisis doctrine. There is a possibility that courts will take extra measures to protect people from the unjust retroactive effects. However, the bar can develop a stron...