I do think that judicial discretion is important. Since every case is unique, it is up to judges to determine which previous cases the current case is most like and which written laws are most relevant to the case at hand. It is also important that judges think of the consequences of their rulings and keep an agenda in mind.
That being said, should judges always have the ultimate say. What if someone (I'll call him the defendant) commits a crime against someone (I'll call him the plaintiff), but then the defendant apologizes and the plaintiff forgives the criminal? Should a judge step in and say "no you still need to be punished"?
I guess to answer that question I need to determine why people are punished: 1. So the defendant learns a lesson. 2. So the plaintiff gets some sort of revenge 3. To send a message to other people not to commit the crime. What if the plaintiff- that is, the one who was wronged- feels that everything would be cool without a punishment? Should that overrule a judge's decision?
Maybe not, because then people would be OK with committing crimes against forgiving people. Judges have to make sure that all wrong-doers have to face the same (well similar) consequences regardless of how the plaintiff feels. And cases are usually only brought to courts when the plaintiff truly feels wronged.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that judicial discretion is important. Written rules, such as legal rules, should not be the only base of rational and judgment. Where as a judge can account for an indefinite amount of factors and related outcomes, legal rules cannot. On the other hand, a judge must be consistent with previous rulings as well as uphold to law. It is also possible for the plaintiff to exaggerate claims against a defendant with sufficient evidence or not. I believe a judge, not legal rules and laws, can sort out the discrepancy.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Judges do have to follow the law and precedent. They can't just decide to change a judgment because the plaintiff decides to withdrawal. The judges job is to sort out these kinds of problems while ALSO following precedent and legal rules and laws. Laws can never be set aside.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that judicial discretion is really important. The way you describe your setting is somewhat unrealistic. We have to realize that court cases operate in different settings. You describe the adversaries of a civil case with both a private plaintiff and defendant. It is important to remember that most criminal cases, the person who was wronged is simply called as a witness and not a plaintiff in the case. The prosecutor is the one who has the discretion in this case. If a defendant apologizes, and the plaintiff has accepted the apology, this is a civil case and the plaintiff is able to drop the charges for whatever reason. But yes, prosecutorial discretion is also a very powerful and important power.
ReplyDeleteI do agree the judge should have the ultimate last say in a case and interpret the laws but I don’t agree with the comments that the judge should follow the law 100 percent because he or she should judge the case on the situation because people commit crimes for a different reason. If the defendant apology to the plaintiff and if the plaintiff wants to accept if I believe the judge should not sentence it in civil crime but not criminal court.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that discretion is an important tool to use for judges because it can help in determining whether the law being implied in the case fits the crime. The ultimate decision should not be completely based on the legal rules. I agree with the comment above that if it is a civil crime and the plaintiff forgives the defendant then the judge should not do anything. If it is a criminal offense then the state should have an obligation to still sentence the offender and the judge should still take action
ReplyDelete