What does the doctrine of precedent require judges to do?

What does the doctrine of precedent require judges to do?

• A. Make rulings based on current public opinion
• B. Base rulings on previous cases
• C. Broaden the law without restriction
• D. Consult with the legislative body

Answer: (B)

The doctrine of precedent, also known as stare decisis, requires judges to base their rulings on the decisions made in previous cases. This principle ensures consistency and predictability in the law by obligating judges to follow established legal precedents when making decisions in new cases that share similar facts or legal issues. The reliance on prior case law allows for a more stable and understandable legal system, as parties involved in legal disputes can anticipate how the law will likely be applied based on its historical application. This approach contrasts significantly with making rulings based on current public opinion, which would introduce variability and subjectivity into the legal process. Additionally, while the law does evolve, the doctrine of precedent does not allow for unfettered expansion; rather, any changes must be carefully considered in the context of existing legal frameworks. Furthermore, judicial decisions are independent of legislative consultation, as the courts interpret the law rather than crafting new statutes. Therefore, the correct response accurately captures the essence of the doctrine of precedent and its role in the judicial process.

The doctrine of precedent, also known as stare decisis, requires judges to base their rulings on the decisions made in previous cases. This principle ensures consistency and predictability in the law by obligating judges to follow established legal precedents when making decisions in new cases that share similar facts or legal issues. The reliance on prior case law allows for a more stable and understandable legal system, as parties involved in legal disputes can anticipate how the law will likely be applied based on its historical application.

This approach contrasts significantly with making rulings based on current public opinion, which would introduce variability and subjectivity into the legal process. Additionally, while the law does evolve, the doctrine of precedent does not allow for unfettered expansion; rather, any changes must be carefully considered in the context of existing legal frameworks. Furthermore, judicial decisions are independent of legislative consultation, as the courts interpret the law rather than crafting new statutes. Therefore, the correct response accurately captures the essence of the doctrine of precedent and its role in the judicial process.