Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 05:15:01 PMQuote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 24, 2021, 04:46:34 PM
I think that one of the two of us is confused about stare decisis. My understanding is that this is a principle which establishes that precedent should largely govern the decisions of a court. If courts have followed and established principal or rule for deciding a particular set of matters, a judge should continue to do so absent compelling reason. I have never understood it to mean that a judge could, for example, declare new crimes on the basis of existing principles.Quote from: Wikipedia on "Common Law"The first definition of "common law" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, 2014, is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions... arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation."
I think that some of what you clipped out when quoting is actually helpful :)
QuoteThis first connotation can be further differentiated into:
(a) general common law
arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation. Examples include most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most contract law and the law of torts.
(b) interstitial common law
court decisions that analyze, interpret and determine the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies. This body of common law, sometimes called "interstitial common law", includes judicial interpretation of the Constitution, of legislative statutes, and of agency regulations, and the application of law to specific facts.
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 05:15:01 PM
Stare decisis literally historically has meant that judges make law, including new crimes, until overruled by statute.
Would you please provide an example of a Talossa judge inventing a new crime and punishing someone for it? I am always eager to learn.
Beyond that, to be clear, I think you are wrong. As far as I understand it, stare decisis is a legal principle which states only that it should generally be the policy of a judge to abide by precedent in interpreting the law. Believing in the principle of stare decisis does not mean that I think it is a good idea for a judge to be able to invent new laws from whole cloth, and the specific language and extremely long-lasting policy of the Talossan judiciary has never interpreted it that way. There's some wiggle room here, since even the idea of what is "law" is kind of fuzzy. I mean, the courts have traditionally given enormous deference to participants in any proceeding in terms of scheduling, and an expectation of long deadlines and great leniency has become so enshrined that it could be argued that it represents a kind of law which supplements the written law, eg that interstitial common law which makes it possible for statutes to be open to some flexible interpretation. What is a "reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction?" Well, the corts fill in the details there, and other corts are generally expected to abide by previous decisions (eg stare decesis). Common law!
But barring one exception that you personally found outrageous, judges have not invented new laws in Talossa, but rather interpreted them. This is because the Talossan legal tradition is overwhelmingly influenced by the American tradition. If you glance over the rulings handed down, you will find that almost every decision is guided by an attempt to interpret the existing statutory or Organic law whenever possible, making rules and sorting through ambiguities with the goal of getting it exactly clear what the law might be.
It is the duty of every component of a good legal system, whenever possible, to make the law clear to citizens. Whenever the legality of an action is unclear, that's a failing of the system. Often it's unavoidable, since no legislator or judge can anticipate every permutation of every situation. But the goal should always be clarity. No citizen should wonder whether or not something is a crime.