2007-11-14 01:45:53 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
No. The primary advantage of the common law system is that it allows the law to breath, grow, and be flexible to changing circumstances, while maintaining SOME consistency, certainty, and uniformity. These two sets of values are inherently in conflict. The common law system (aka stare decisis) balances them against each other.
2007-11-14 01:54:10 · answer #1 · answered by nycityboy1234 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stare decisis is simply the process in common-law jurisdictions whereby the lower courts consider themselves to be bound by precedent in higher courts (and the higher courts follow their own precedent) and thereby formulate what is intended to be a consistent set of laws.
As facts are the one thing which are not consistent, decisions may vary and sometimes Judges get it wrong. Then the higher court can intervene.
In same-fact situations; stare decisis does, in my view (and in my professional experience) achieve all of the above.
2007-11-14 02:07:56 · answer #2 · answered by JZD 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Times change.
2007-11-14 01:52:30 · answer #3 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's the goal, but I disagree with it being the outcome :)
2007-11-14 03:59:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋