THE ARTICULATION OF THE LAW AND THE PREDICTABILITY OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Judges are expected to maintain order by making decisions that align with people's sense of justice, but they often face situations where established rules lead to conflicting expectations. When this happens, judges must find a way to balance these competing expectations, even if there is no clear rule to guide them. They start with established rules but must consider the broader context and the needs of the legal system, which may require modifying existing rules or creating new ones.
The belief that written laws provide greater certainty and predictability in judicial decisions is questioned. While codification can clarify specific issues, it can also limit judges to only the rules that are explicitly stated, which may not always lead to fair outcomes. Judges may actually have more predictable results when guided by a general sense of justice, even if that sense is not written down.
The idea that judges strictly follow logical reasoning from written rules is seen as unrealistic since judges often use their intuition and understanding of justice in decision-making. In many cases where judicial decisions have surprised the public or contradicted common expectations, it may be because judges were too focused on the strict letter of the law. This approach can ignore the underlying principles of justice that society recognizes.
Moreover, the idea that all laws must be clearly articulated beforehand is criticized. Many important legal principles exist informally and are understood even if not formally stated. The view that law is merely a product of deliberate legislation overlooks the reality that laws often arise from existing social principles that people recognize in practice. Therefore, judges should be free to adapt their decisions to align with these principles, ensuring justice even if it requires going beyond strict written rules.
Judges are expected to maintain order by making decisions that align with people's sense of justice, but they often face situations where established rules lead to conflicting expectations. When this happens, judges must find a way to balance these competing expectations, even if there is no clear rule to guide them. They start with established rules but must consider the broader context and the needs of the legal system, which may require modifying existing rules or creating new ones.
The belief that written laws provide greater certainty and predictability in judicial decisions is questioned. While codification can clarify specific issues, it can also limit judges to only the rules that are explicitly stated, which may not always lead to fair outcomes. Judges may actually have more predictable results when guided by a general sense of justice, even if that sense is not written down.
The idea that judges strictly follow logical reasoning from written rules is seen as unrealistic since judges often use their intuition and understanding of justice in decision-making. In many cases where judicial decisions have surprised the public or contradicted common expectations, it may be because judges were too focused on the strict letter of the law. This approach can ignore the underlying principles of justice that society recognizes.
Moreover, the idea that all laws must be clearly articulated beforehand is criticized. Many important legal principles exist informally and are understood even if not formally stated. The view that law is merely a product of deliberate legislation overlooks the reality that laws often arise from existing social principles that people recognize in practice. Therefore, judges should be free to adapt their decisions to align with these principles, ensuring justice even if it requires going beyond strict written rules.