Chaz B paper on discretion

Response on Llewellyn: two different forms of precedent
According to Llewellyn, American judges, have two different ways in which they act upon law. He calls this the doctrine of precedent. Precedent is set guidelines a judge has to apply the law. It is also the standard for which the extent of the law is carried out. Without precedent judges could rule solely on personal biases or beliefs.
The first view of law is called “strict”. It allows the judge to respect the set rule and interpret however he chooses. With this mind set the precedent is respected but not always adhered to. Example law #42 does not apply because of special circumstances. This has advantages and disadvantages. If a judge does not like Mexicans, with brown hair, he can then interpret the law in a way that satisfies his own personal prejudice. As a result not protecting the right of that individual but fulfilling his own personal agenda. There are also instances when the law may not adequately protect the individual. Then it is at the judge’s discretion to implement the benefits of law. A judge who rules from his own beliefs, with no respect for the precedence, deserves no place in our courts. Interpretation does come from past experiences. However rulings should not be made based on an opinion or bias.
The second view is called “loose”. This mindset exercises rights and procedure by looking at past cases. This can help the defendant or hurt him. It depends on which side of the rope he is on. I believe ruling from past experience may not fit all cases. We aren’t always aware of the making of a decision. However this can be of benefit to those who are seeking rehabilitation. If drug attics are seeking not serving time in jail, his lawyers might offer a suggestion to send the client to a program that specializes in recovery. The first step would be to exercise loose doctrine. The lawyer would argue that many Americans have been changed as a result of these programs. This point of the doctrine of precedent is used often and has succeeded.
Both points of view are used every day in our judicial system. No matter how much they contradict each other, they work together. We must function the best way we know. Precedence was set for use not abuse.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 License