Judicial discretion is at the mercy of the Judge. Judges have to follow the positive or written law, but the interpretation of how the law should be applied to a certain situation is up to the Judge. Judges are in charge inside of the courtroom. Their decision can be amended in the court of appeals, but again the law is going to be interpreted by another judge. The law depends on legal executives to carry out and enforce the law. Judges represent the law and the government, so the decisions that Judges make tend to be fair and accurately enforce the law. The government can’t rule on every criminal or civil case, so they must appoint officials to carry out the law. Police officers apprehend the offenders of the law, but there needs to be a neutral party between the crime committed and the punishment. Also, the jury plays a vital role in a courtroom. The beauty of the jury is that it is made of a group of the defendant’s peers. Supposedly, the jury is on the same level as the defendant and can objectively make a decision, regarding the guilt of the defendant.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI feel like that the judges, in almost every case, are working as members of the government and are enforcing the laws as government, not just some detached and neutral group appointed to cover for the government when they are unable to give a decision. Often I think this is what leads to many of the decisions judges make, political good for them, and beneficial for the government they are acting as.
ReplyDeleteThe judges are there to represent the law and should uphold the law but of course they have there own biases and beliefs. The supreme court for example is often split up conservative and liberal and will often make decisions based on that, so I would have to agree with Rob's comment based on that.
ReplyDelete