Stare Decisis is the principle upon which the doctrine of precedent is based. The reason we use precedent is because there is a common agreement it's generally best to leave things as they are.
For instance the original Constitution is constitution for the United States 1871 they changed it Constitution of the United States you see the one keyword
It seems to me that “judges make laws” is incorrect. Granted I’m from the US so the system may be slightly different but, when the kid walks through the room with muddy feet, the law created to add a penalty to the mud has to be based on an existing law correct? The new rules are created on an existing precedent or a law made by the branch of government tasked to make law. It seems to me that precedent is more so defining an existing law rather than creating a new law from thin air.. as far as judges and courts are concerned.
Hello Clint. I do not feel able to comment much on the differences between US and UK systems. I am writing from the UK perspective. Both UK and USA have a common law system but yes, they are different. If I understand you rightly, one difference that you are thinking about is the difference between judges making 'original' law and making law through interpreting existing law (whether statute or judge made law.) In the UK system of precedent, judges are not free to ignore existing precedent it is true. However, logically there will always be some cases where neither existing precedent nor statute really sheds any light on what laws must be used in the correct resolution of the case. (The world moves on, lawmakers and judges have to catch up. ) It seems that in the UK, where there is no written constitution (as such) defining what one might call broad principles of superior law that judges in the higher courts are obliged to refer to, the occasions where in practical terms they create laws may be more frequent than in the US. In the US, there is such a written constitution that judges must look to and interpret. (I appreciate that the Human Rights Act 1998 has muddied the waters somewhat in the UK but I think my point still holds true.) The other thing I would say is that the difference between original law and law from interpretation is a fine one when the interpretation given by a judge is intellectually justifiable but unorthodox.
Hi Vadim, I am not sure what your point is. Absolutely, no two cases are identical. Nevertheless, some cases have sufficient factual similarities to enable the judge involved to follow a precedent (the judicial ruling in an earlier case). That is the basic idea of the doctrine of precedent and what I meant by any reference made to cases being 'the same'.
