Shouldn't courts be ruled by moral judgement rather than a set law? Situations vary.....?

Question

There is always a standard when it comes to morals. Everyone knows, so don't try to call that part "rational".

Answer 1

That's the exact opposite of our legal system. The politicians that make the law take into account the current mores of the country when drawing up or amending laws. The court system is simply there to see that the laws are carried out fairly - they do not have the latitude to rewrite law depending on the case in front of them.

Answer 2

Their are 2 big problems with your suggestion. One is that moral values differ from person to person. Who is to decide which set of morals the judge would use to rule on the case, your morals or mine?

The other problem with your suggestion is that we would no longer be a free people deciding our own fate. Now, the laws are made by our elected officials that we can remove at the next election if they don't vote the way we want them to.

Your idea would change that, we would be ruled by an aristocracy of judges. The other purpose of having a system of laws that are clear and apply to everyone is that it ensures that the government cannot put innocent people in jail and that the rich can not evade laws because they have influence with the judges.

Actually the sad thing is that during the past 20 years the liberal judges have been ruling according to what they think is right instead of what the law states. This is one of the reasons that people have become so polarized in the country.

The liberal Federal judges have created case laws that the majority of the people are opposed to and would never have been enacted into law by the legislatures.

Answer 3

courts are governed by "reason" not morals- read the works of Grotius, Voet, Justinian- there is an outstanding debate studied in the law of jurisprudence- the "Hart-Fuller debate, in which they argue the law as it is and the law as it should be. as was once said. "law is but the dark shadow of justice". moral judgments are emotive judgments and so difficult to rely on and thus inadvisable- now a process that affords elimination, evidence, disclosure, testimony is certainly more balanced and the ruling of guilty or innocent "beyond reasonable doubt" is preferable than one person's subjective view on morality.

Answer 4

whose morals? that is the question..

you ask a valid question but in the real world it just doesn't work because what is moral and what is not is questionable. whereas, written laws (statutes) and cases (case law) are less prone to questioning.

laws are created so that there is 'fairness' and uniformity of outcome. imagine having a judge determine your outcome in a case based on his or her moral standards. by one judges standards you can be jailed and by another's standards you can be free.

whereas, if your outcome is determined by hard fast written laws , your outcome will be same no matter what court or judge you face (theoratically).

Answer 5

Set law is based on moral judgement. All laws come from moral value. How can you swing in the wind when it comes to punishment. Would you use your feelings for or against someone the way he/she looks? No sir, pusishment is the same for peggy sue or Jack the ripper if they are involved in the same type of crime. Laws allow for your thinking already. Don't water them down any further than they are.

Answer 6

absolutely not! one person's moral is another person's nightmare. The job of a judge should be deciding how the law applies to a situation, never to interpret the law.

Answer 7

Well, isn't that a cute question, Attorneys that I have encountered or worked with generally live by a "few codes/omerta", Here it is "there is no such thing as morality there is only legality and technicality". Moral judgment, whats moral to you may be immoral to your neighbor, or disputable, why care, Damn if we all as species of the human race carried a sense of morals, we wouldn't be court not a one of us, or all evil in this world would diminish if we had morals, pedophiles wouldn't be PRIESTS, who teach Morality. Do the math let your brain go wild with that question

Answer 8

Absolutely not! Judges are supposed to base their decisions on "set laws." Because what gives law its credibility and respectability is its predictability. "The known certainty of the law is the protection of all," Lord Coke said centuries ago.

Answer 9

YES, that is why we need judges to interpret the laws application to proven facts. But if they are stoned, Like the chief justice was for the past 15 years, it sort of makes you lose confidence in this system of trusting judges.( Rhenquist)

Answer 10

I think that each case should be looked at individually. Only then can one make a ruling. Each case is different and needs to be handled a different way.