Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that requires courts to follow precedent set by higher courts in previous cases. This principle promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness in the legal system.

Influence on Decision-Making

Stare decisis plays a significant role in judicial decision-making at both lower and higher courts.

• Lower Courts: Lower courts are generally bound by decisions of higher courts within their jurisdiction. This means that they must follow the precedent set by appellate courts and the supreme court.
• Higher Courts: While higher courts are not strictly bound by their own precedents, they often give them significant weight. Deviations from precedent are typically reserved for cases where the previous decision is clearly wrong or outdated.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Adhering to Precedent

Advantages:

• Consistency: Adherence to precedent promotes consistency and predictability in the law, which is essential for legal certainty and fairness.
• Efficiency: Following precedent can save time and resources by avoiding the need to re-litigate similar cases.
• Respect for the rule of law: Adhering to precedent reinforces the principle that the law is based on precedent and precedent-based decision-making.

Disadvantages:

• Rigidity: Strict adherence to precedent can make it difficult to adapt the law to changing societal circumstances.
• Injustice: In some cases, following precedent can lead to unjust outcomes, particularly when the previous decision was based on outdated or discriminatory views.
• Lack of innovation: Overreliance on precedent can stifle innovation and prevent the law from evolving to address new challenges.

Circumstances for Deviating from Precedent

While stare decisis is a fundamental principle of the legal system, there are circumstances where courts may deviate from precedent:

• Clear error: If a previous decision is clearly wrong or based on faulty reasoning, a court may deviate from it.
• Changed circumstances: When societal conditions or technological advancements have rendered a previous decision outdated, a court may reconsider the precedent.
• Public policy: In some cases, courts may deviate from precedent to promote important public policy objectives.

Potential Impacts of Deviating from Precedent

Deviations from precedent can have significant impacts on the legal system, including:

• Uncertainty: Deviating from precedent can create uncertainty and unpredictability in the law.
• Erosion of the rule of law: Frequent deviations from precedent can undermine the principle of the rule of law.
• Political influence: If courts deviate from precedent too frequently, it can raise concerns about political influence and the erosion of judicial independence.

In conclusion, stare decisis is a fundamental principle of the legal system that promotes consistency, predictability, and fairness. However, it is important to balance the benefits of adherence to precedent with the need for flexibility and adaptability in the face of changing circumstances.