Stare Decisis is the principle upon which the doctrine of precedent is based. The reason we use precedent is because there is a common agreement it's generally best to leave things as they are.
It seems to me that “judges make laws” is incorrect. Granted I’m from the US so the system may be slightly different but, when the kid walks through the room with muddy feet, the law created to add a penalty to the mud has to be based on an existing law correct? The new rules are created on an existing precedent or a law made by the branch of government tasked to make law. It seems to me that precedent is more so defining an existing law rather than creating a new law from thin air.. as far as judges and courts are concerned.
Hello Clint. I do not feel able to comment much on the differences between US and UK systems. I am writing from the UK perspective. Both UK and USA have a common law system but yes, they are different. If I understand you rightly, one difference that you are thinking about is the difference between judges making 'original' law and making law through interpreting existing law (whether statute or judge made law.) In the UK system of precedent, judges are not free to ignore existing precedent it is true. However, logically there will always be some cases where neither existing precedent nor statute really sheds any light on what laws must be used in the correct resolution of the case. (The world moves on, lawmakers and judges have to catch up. ) It seems that in the UK, where there is no written constitution (as such) defining what one might call broad principles of superior law that judges in the higher courts are obliged to refer to, the occasions where in practical terms they create laws may be more frequent than in the US. In the US, there is such a written constitution that judges must look to and interpret. (I appreciate that the Human Rights Act 1998 has muddied the waters somewhat in the UK but I think my point still holds true.) The other thing I would say is that the difference between original law and law from interpretation is a fine one when the interpretation given by a judge is intellectually justifiable but unorthodox.
For instance the original Constitution is constitution for the United States 1871 they changed it Constitution of the United States you see the one keyword
Hi Vadim, I am not sure what your point is. Absolutely, no two cases are identical. Nevertheless, some cases have sufficient factual similarities to enable the judge involved to follow a precedent (the judicial ruling in an earlier case). That is the basic idea of the doctrine of precedent and what I meant by any reference made to cases being 'the same'.
This actually makes sense now . Learnt more in 11 minutes than in one whole year at uni . Thank you so much for this content , very much appreciated 🎉
very clear with good examples, thank you.
So much better than my lecturer
Mine too 😄
maybe if you listened it wouldn't be so hard
This helped in understanding the Doctrine of Precedent
This should be how 1st year law school be taught... hahaha this make senses
Im studying Law [first year] and this is very helpful
Correctly
Wooooow this is awesome I must say...... Thanks a bunch
waw! awesome, this very helpful. thanks
I loved that video, i am a brazillian student!
Hey....enjoying it from Bangladesh. Take love❤️
Could you also explain the variation in approach in the case of civil law countries?
Thank you so much with this video!
Great video. What's the name of the Pianist? I can't find it.
Thank you!
Thank you for this.
Glad to help!
+LearnLoads It was boring.
(-_+)
thank you for letting me use your video!
thankyou sooo sooo sooo much .......
Thank you soo much from a german law student :-D (Y)
Bitte schon!
@@Learnloads Thank you so much from an English Law Student. 🇬🇧
Fine video quite easier way to illustrate..liked it
Thanks for this video really helped! How does stare decisis link to this? Not sure it’s exact definition and how it exactly fits into precedent? :)
Stare Decisis is the principle upon which the doctrine of precedent is based. The reason we use precedent is because there is a common agreement it's generally best to leave things as they are.
I seen Doctrine of precedent.
I like this video
Good well and calmly spoken ... only thing u left out was overruling when mentioning on the list
Great work
hi, are you doing llb
@@INCEPTUM494 yes I am :)
owww so awsome
asikur rahman
thank u
It seems to me that “judges make laws” is incorrect. Granted I’m from the US so the system may be slightly different but, when the kid walks through the room with muddy feet, the law created to add a penalty to the mud has to be based on an existing law correct? The new rules are created on an existing precedent or a law made by the branch of government tasked to make law. It seems to me that precedent is more so defining an existing law rather than creating a new law from thin air.. as far as judges and courts are concerned.
Hello Clint. I do not feel able to comment much on the differences between US and UK systems. I am writing from the UK perspective. Both UK and USA have a common law system but yes, they are different. If I understand you rightly, one difference that you are thinking about is the difference between judges making 'original' law and making law through interpreting existing law (whether statute or judge made law.) In the UK system of precedent, judges are not free to ignore existing precedent it is true. However, logically there will always be some cases where neither existing precedent nor statute really sheds any light on what laws must be used in the correct resolution of the case. (The world moves on, lawmakers and judges have to catch up. ) It seems that in the UK, where there is no written constitution (as such) defining what one might call broad principles of superior law that judges in the higher courts are obliged to refer to, the occasions where in practical terms they create laws may be more frequent than in the US. In the US, there is such a written constitution that judges must look to and interpret. (I appreciate that the Human Rights Act 1998 has muddied the waters somewhat in the UK but I think my point still holds true.)
The other thing I would say is that the difference between original law and law from interpretation is a fine one when the interpretation given by a judge is intellectually justifiable but unorthodox.
For instance the original Constitution is constitution for the United States 1871 they changed it Constitution of the United States you see the one keyword
No precedent for this one.
8:48
There is no same cases as there is no same DNA or fingerprints. Every case has different circumstances and nuances.
Hi Vadim, I am not sure what your point is. Absolutely, no two cases are identical. Nevertheless, some cases have sufficient factual similarities to enable the judge involved to follow a precedent (the judicial ruling in an earlier case). That is the basic idea of the doctrine of precedent and what I meant by any reference made to cases being 'the same'.
isn't it president
That means the President as in the President of a country.
that mothers a lunatic