Should the British Judiciary be made accountable for their actions?

Question

Should Judges be named and shamed For wrong Decisions?

Answer 1

Much depends on what is accepted as a 'wrong decision'. There are all sorts of legal, philosophical, economic and sociological arguments in favour of and against decisions. You can say a decision is descriptively contrary to case law or normatively flawed. Equally some would argue against such findings. The result is that Parliament, the courts, legal practitioners and citizens already hold Judges to account through their exercise of scrutiny. Much turns on what functions, types and standards of "accountability" we accept. I don't think the question is as simple as people make it out to be.

Dworkin (Ronald Dworkin) argues that in some cases there is always a right answer and a party who has to win. Verbatim, judges should try to make decisions based on law as integrity, which requires that any propositions of law they state be true only if they fit the institutional structure of society and conceptions of fairness and justice, and provide the best constructive justification or interpretation of the community's legal practice. This is a theory of adjudication - an idea of accountability that is more normative.

Answer 2

Of course they should and anyone saying differently dont understand how the system is designed to work. They should not be exempted from accountability and should if circumstances justify even be prosecuted.

So called forensic expert Roy Meadows is probably one of the more incompetent in living memory, along with self styled sexual abuse expert Marietta Higgs.

My thoughts are with the victims of such incompetence and the stigma that goes with it.

The statement, 'the law is an ***' is ever so appropriate in many cases, judges who lack lateral thinking and discernment are more prolific than people think. Magistrates however are somewhat different they lack professional training and are largely incompetent.

The road to court is paved with good intentions,and incompetence a hazardous bi-product of the judiciary

Answer 3

A wrong decision in morals may not be wrong legally after all the judiciary can allow follow the will of parliament who are the legislators.

But you always have appeals and judicial reviews, but wrong decisions are rarer the higher you go up, your more likely to have wrong decision in much lower courts.

Answer 4

No, anyone can make a mistake and the law can be unclear at times and therefore liable to varying interpretations. It seems to me that modern laws are so badly drawn up due to the poor standard English language teaching that that there are huge gaps available for horses and carts to go through.

Answer 5

No. They should be sacked and prosecuted. I think this every time I hear about some filthy perv being given a ridiculously short sentence for his crime(s).

Answer 6

YES, yes, and yes. They are fossils, sold their souls and full of poo. Before long, it is we the people who will be forced to take the law into our own hands....and woe to them that stand in the way...

Answer 7

Bloody right

Answer 8

Yes, as well as police officers and so called expert witnesses who **** up!!!

Answer 9

Who to?

Answer 10

YES - of course !