The Importance of Judicial Independence
Robert Drozdowski Political Science 111 Ed Marrits November 30, 2001 The Importance of Judicial Independence Do judges have too much power? In recent years, politicians and others have criticized judges for rulings that seem to defy conventional wisdom and the accepted will. As a cure, some have called for the impeachment of federal judges and for judicial term limits and for a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by majority vote. There is nothing new, or even wrong, about criticizing judges for unpopular rulings. Conservative judges have been just as prone to condemnation from the left for being "activist" as their liberal counterparts have been from the right. However, recent attacks go far beyond criticizing individual rulings. Most of these proposals are dangerous because they are aimed at the core of judicial authority itself, the principle of judicial independence. The nation's founders believed that a crucial element of a democratic society was the principle of judicial independence. This power frees judges from the political pressures that might prevent them from impartially enforcing the rights and principles guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Without this principle, the system of separation of powers and checks and balances among the three branches of government cannot exist. In the Declaration of
Types of Magistrate
Magistrates Magistrates try people in a court called a Magistrates court. There are two types of Magistrates one is the lay type, which does not get paid for the work they do, and they do not have any formal legal knowledge. They go through some training this is 12 hours every 3 years that is not a lot at all. The other type s Stipendiary Magistrates or district judges - Magistrates court. These are highly paid and have a lot of training. These have the same powers as normal Magistrates but they only have to sit on there own and do not have to have a clerk sitting with them unlike the lay Magistrates. Lay Magistrates sit in groups of 3 to 7. Magistrates try many things, some of these include issues like bail, the Magistrates decide weather or not the defendants is allowed it or not. This would be decided on the amount of evidence the prosecution has the seriousness of the crime and the pass record of the defendant. They also handle things like application for legal aid and decide on the mode of the trial. The District judges - Magistrates court the same thing only they are only used when there is not enough lay Magistrates to handle the large amount of crime in an area they are used a lot around large towns or cities. The trials that are heard in the Magistrates court are all summary trials and some triable either way, some examples of these are speeding offences
With reference to any are of law, explain the difference between the liberal and paternalistic approaches to the relationship between law and morality (Hart/Devlin debate), which would you consider to be more appropriate?
With reference to any are of law, explain the difference between the liberal and paternalistic approaches to the relationship between law and morality (Hart/Devlin debate), which would you consider to be more appropriate? The paternalistic approach was that of argued by Lord Devlin. He argued that the law should be used to maintain the fabric of society through a shared morality. In other words, he said that a common recognised morality should be held by most members of society. He also argued that morality is needed to preserve society. In contrast to this, the liberal approach as argued by HLA Hart is concerned with individual freedom. Hart argued that the law should be used to preserve some harm. The liberal approach stresses that there are too many cultures to decide on what's moral. The paternalistic approach was taken in the case of R v Brown & Others (1993) In this case a group of homosexuals were convicted of malicious wounding after performing certain sadomasochistic acts. The defendant's had argued that they had consented, but the Court of Appeal decided that the men's conduct was criminal. The are of law concerned here is privacy. Our right to privacy is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was incorporated into our law by the human Rights Act 1998. Article 8 (1) of the ECHR states that everyone has the right to respect for his
Statutory Interpretation Statute law
Business Law Statutory Interpretation Statute law, unlike case law, provides rules in the form of a single verbal formula. The statutes are not read and analyzed in the same way as cases. The words of a statute have a unique authority which words in judgments virtually never have. Statutory language contains the rule, while judgments at best merely offer one expression of it, or view about it. Statutory interpretation means assessing legislative intention based on the binding rules, on principles and on presumptions as to what Parliament had in mind and on linguistic construction. No argument must be overlooked when searching for all the relevant interpretative factors. It is the judges' role to interpret the law and there are three main rules for interpretation, the general principles and they are as follows: -Literal Interpretation -Golden Rule -Mischief Rule These rules are not interchangeable with one another, when interpreting, judges if applying these rules must emphasize on all of them not just one, but then again there are differences between the three rules. The Literal Rule requires consideration of the plain and ordinary meaning of the words. An example from the area of contract law is Fisher v Bell, where it was decided that the placing of an article in a window did not equal to offering. In other words, the Literal Rule considers what the legislation
Describe how the doctrine of precedent operates through a hierarchy or courts within the English legal system. Illustrate you description with cases.
a) Describe how the doctrine of precedent operates through a hierarchy or courts within the English legal system. Illustrate you description with cases. (15) The doctrine of binding precedent states that a judge us bound by the law contained in earlier decisions. This system is based on stare decisis; that which is decided is to stand. The operation of judicial precedence depends on the hierarchy of the courts. This is because before a judge is bound by a precedent, three conditions have to be satisfied, one of which being that the precedent must have been decided by a binding court. In matters of law with a European element, the highest court is the European Court of Justice. Its decisions are binding on all English courts including the House of Lords, the next highest court, whose decisions are binding on all lower courts and, up until 1966, was also bound by its own decisions. It was in this year that the Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner issued a practise statement that the House of Lords could depart from their own previous decisions "when it appears right to do so." The first time the House of Lords exercised this power was in 1972 in the case of British Railways Board v Herrington when they overruled an earlier House of Lords decision in Addie v Dumbreck [1929]. It wasn't until 1986 in R v Shivpuri that the House of Lords overruled itself in a criminal case,
Legal and Ethical Issues in Health Services : Cruzan vs Director, Missouri Department of Health et. al. 110 S. Ct. 2841
Tammy L. Greene 760 Tower Road Lebanon, Missouri 65536 (417) 532-1964 [email protected] Legal and Ethical Issues in Health Services Assignment #1 Case Brief of: Cruzan vs Director, Missouri Department of Health et. al. 110 S. Ct. 2841 Facts: Petitioner Nancy Cruzan received severe injuries in an automobile accident which left her incompetent and in a vegetative state. Ms Cruzan's parents sought a court order to terminate artificial nutrition and hydration, because it had been determined she had no chance of recovery. Judicial History: Employees of the state hospital in which Ms Cruzan was a patient of denied the parents request to remove Ms Cruzan from artificial nutrition and hydration without authorization from a state trial court for termination, because such termination would cause death. The circuit court ruled that Ms Cruzan's parents acting on her behalf, could order her feeding tube removed. This ruling was in favor of Ms Cruzan's parents, and was appealed by the Director, Missouri Department of Health to the Missouri Supreme Court. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial judge's decision in favor of the Director, Missouri Department of Health. Ms Cruzan's parents then appealed it to the United States Supreme Court. Issue(s): Ms Cruzan's family waged a legal battle to have their daughter removed from artificial nutrition and hydration. The