Tuesday, February 3, 2015
Courts Write Decisions That Elude Long View
This article is about federal appeals courts that write decisions that are basically good for that trial alone, a "one time ruling". Unpublished decisions cause problems if a particular case is pushing to be sent into the higher courts. Without a published decision, a similar case could be ruled differently a second time around, revealing the issues with the system. What do you think about unpublished decisions?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel that unpublished decisions aren't such a bad thing. Every case is different, and it would be inaccurate to hold ones sort of similar to the same standard. I would hope that judges are honest people who can make decisions without any bias, and therefore make sure each decision is just.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Rachel, not all cases are the same and should be treated individually. I don't agree with judges not publishing decisions because they don't have the time to explain why they made their decision.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that every case should be treated differently, some degree of consistency should be expected. That being said, it wouldn't do good for the judicial system to be overwhelmed and for every single case to have an impact on it. While there are some downsides, the current system is still sound.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Malachi, the best approach is to certainly treat each individual case differently, but to be mindful that previous rulings of similar cases should not conflict. Malachi put it best, despite some downsides, the current court system is fine.
ReplyDeleteWe should treat most cases differently. However, when we are talking about precedent and truly saying "This is the Law" not having published decisions causes many problems. Ultimately the problem is that judges are picked by congress, so in order to secure their jobs they want to be as impartial as possible so that congressman from the opposite party dont consider getting them kicked out of their job.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of "unpublished cases" promotes laziness within the judiciary body. To Judge Alex Kozinski who says “We simply do not have the time to shape and edit unpublished dispositions to make them safe as precedent,” I say it is your job...make time. The judge further explained that courts did not have time to adequately explain the nuances of each case to all of the parties involved. If the parties involved can't understand the proceedings, what is the point? I feel like Judges will start to feel that if no one is going to see it, they will not be held accountable for their work. Seeing as judges are appointed (not held accountable by the general population), their work should at least be quality controlled through easy access.
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the sentiment here. Each case should be treated differently and while there should be some consistency as far as rulings go, it would be too overwhelming for judges to scrutinize closely every single thing they say in the ruling for a case. If a case sets a definite precedent, then it certainly deserves such care. But otherwise, it is not necessary. Ultimately, as Malachi put it, the current system is sound and I see little need for it to be changed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our legal system does not have any major flaws, but what is the harm in publishing cases? Judges would only have to look at cases that relate specifically to the case that they are making a decision on. I don't see that as being too overwhelming. Every trial should be treated a little bit differently as every situation is a little bit different, but ultimately precedents need to be set in order to allow for fair and consistent rulings.
ReplyDeleteEach trial is different so it should be dealt with differently. Yes the published cases with a leading precedent ruling would be ideal but we don't live in an ideal world. Like Jamie said, I don't see why the judges would put in all the effort on the cases and not publish them.
ReplyDeleteConsidering that every trial is different and requires different handling, I believe that cases should be published in order to expand our thought process when it comes to court decisions. Slight variations in cases can make all the difference, so keeping up with even the most minute details is important when it comes to a trial that could sway the entire life of another human being.
ReplyDeleteBoth trials are so different. They should both be dealt separately. I don't see what the damage would be cause in publishing cases? Judges should take their jobs seriously and really exam what case relates to what. Malachi did however make a great point that there will always be downsides but our current system is still sound.
ReplyDelete