Stare decisis is a common legal doctrine where courts bases recall similar past events to the current ones before making decisions. Its primary obligation is to ensure that the same cases or facts are treated the same way. Due to diverse criminal justice systems, some individuals are in a dilemma to accept if this law can be altered or not. However, stare decisis is not an inexorable command. Depending on the nature of the case, some adjustments can be made to ensure fairness. For instance, under the constitution, the previous law can be amended to enhance equity in offering justice.
When in any case, the court implies that stare decisis is neither an inexorable command nor a mechanical formula but rather a principle policy, it entails a lot. In reality, this means that the court is required to respect and bases their judgments on past rulings. Also, the significance of decision making should be at par and valued. It promotes both the aspects of fairness and consistency. Meanwhile, in some particular circumstances, the court is allowed to nullify previous decisions and develop new rules. Considering the case below, Payne is charged with the murder of Charisse and her two-year daughter. Also, he is responsible for the traumatizing of her son Nicholas. After court proceedings, Payne is found to have committed this crime willingly and with a sound mind. Despite the heartfelt submissions during the trials from his mother and father, Bobbie Thomas and Dr. Houston, that he had mental retardedness, Payne is still subjected to the wrath of the law.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The court is carried away by the admission of Charisse's mother, Mary Zvolanek, on the health status of the survived victim. Nicholas seems to be severely affected by the demise of his mother, and the horrible scenes he went through may affect him for the rest of his life. The court prosecutor had no alternative rather than requesting for the death sentence on Payne. The Supreme Court of Tennessee confirmed the conviction. Nevertheless, the court dismissed Payne's contention and admission by the grandmother's testimony and the closing argument given by the State, which had prejudicial violations of his rights as per the Eighth Amendment (Berland, 2011). These were stated in Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987), and South Carolina v. Gathers 490, U.S. 805(1989). The court terms grandmother’s testimony as inapplicable and applied the certiorari, 498 U.S. (1991), to review the holdings in the Booth and Gathers. The court here considered the significance and the current status of the victim.
Unlike other countries, the U.S lacks a single criminal justice system. Other individual systems handle crimes within various states. Federal criminal justice systems deal with crimes in more than one country. The main constituents of its system include law enforcement, corrections, and adjudication. Arguably, if stare decisis was an unyielding command and a mechanical pattern of decision making in the American justice system, then there could have been notable changes. First, it would be challenging to maintain the same ways of administering justice due to the absence of a pattern of laws to be followed. The principles of guiding criminal sentencing have evolved. For instance, the death penalty leveled against Payne was exercised in the ancient times where there was a tooth for tooth slogan. However, in recent years, judges consider the harm caused by the crime to impose justice. In the presence of stare decisis, it isn't straightforward to develop an effective justice system as prudent ways of evolving laws and administering justice are hindered.
Also, it would have been hard for the American justice system to introduce and develop various policies without properly laid approaches. Under this doctrine, the lower courts must respect the previous decisions by the higher courts. The Supreme Court can overrule itself. Probably, earlier rulings not well conducted may not be overturned (Burton, 2013). It is not easy to develop a stable and orderly system if the law of the precedent under some conditions is not a subject of revision. For instance, in Payne's case, the Supreme Court of Tennessee intervenes and overrules the fact that initially was denied contentions and appeals.
In general, the whole concept of stare decisis is common in our criminal justice systems. Despite the diverse methods that exist, the doctrine is not an inexorable command. Stare decisis is dependent on the precedent and, therefore, can be altered. However, it is preferred in most cases as promotes the development of consistent legal principles as well as enhancing reliance on judicial decisions.
References
Berland, D. L. (2011). Stopping the pendulum: why stare decisis should constrain the Court from further modification of the search incident to arrest exception. U. Ill. L. Rev. , 695.
Burton, S. J. (2013). The conflict between stare decisis and overruling in constitutional adjudication. Cardozo L. Rev. , 35 , 1687.
