馃攳
The doctrine of Stare Decisis/ Judicial Precedent, Definition & Explanation (with examples) - YouTube
Channel: unknown
[0]
Hi, welcome to law professor the youtube channel.
[4]
Today we will look into the principle of stare
decisis.
[8]
So let's get started.
[11]
Also known as the doctrine of judicial precedent.
[13]
Stare decisis literally means "to stand by
things decided".
[20]
This essentially means that once a matter
has been decided in a court of law.
[24]
The other courts are supposed to follow the
rationale adopted by such decisions in other
[30]
cases.
[32]
In other words, the law made by the judges
is applied by themselves and their colleagues
[38]
in future cases of similar nature.
[41]
A precedent is generally set by a higher court
for the lower courts but can also bind the
[46]
same court in its future decisions, these
are its vertical and horizontal applications
[53]
respectively.
[55]
For example, the decisions made by the US
State supreme court of California will be
[64]
binding on all the courts but within california
only, this is due to the limit on their juridiction.
[72]
Whereas a judgment of the Supreme court of
the USA will be binding on all the courts
[79]
operating accross the US.
[81]
That's because the US Supreme Court has jurisdiction
all over the US.
[86]
In contrast, in an International perspective,
the decisions of a US Supreme court will not
[94]
be binding on any courts of India or Pakistan
or anyother common law country.
[103]
It is pertinent to mention here that this
principle is mostly followed in countries
[108]
with common law systems like the countries
mentioned above.
[112]
In countries with civil legal systems, like
Japan and France, the precedents have persuasive
[118]
value but don't possess any binding character.
[122]
For more on differences between common law
and civil law check out the video link in
[127]
the top right corner.
[129]
It is a common belief that there is a lot
of discretion reserved for the courts when
[134]
applying precedents.
[136]
Yet, there are some requirements that need
to be met.
[141]
For instance, the issues being adressed in
both the cases should be the same or near
[146]
identical, the precedent should be set by
a higher court and applied on a lower court,
[152]
And the precedent should not contravene a
statutory law.
[157]
The precedent should not have been overruled
by another precedent.
[163]
In practice, the judges when applying precedents
look at the individual circumstances of every
[171]
case and base their decisions accordingly.
[176]
The purpose of this principle is to establish
consistency, uniformity, and fairness in the
[183]
application of the law.
[185]
It also enforces a form of judicial restraint,
inhibiting judges of the lower courts from
[191]
abusing discretion afforded to them by law.
[195]
It is said to increase efficiency as the courts
don't have to deal with the same matters again
[202]
and again.
[203]
Finally, an example of a judicial precedent
is the famous and rather controversial case
[209]
of Roe v Wade in the US.
[212]
This case established a women's right to abortion
and has stood the test of time for the last
[219]
50 years.
[220]
Brown vs Board of Education is a similar and
equally controversial example this case streamlined
[227]
the legalities of desegregation process in
the public schools.
[232]
You can find the link to these cases in the
description below.
[237]
What do you think about precedents?
[239]
Do you believe they are an efficient and time
saving tool to decide cases or do they promote
[245]
lethargy and copy-paste culture among judges?
[249]
Let's discuss this in the comments and I'll
see you next time.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage