Internal Factor: Judicial Philosophy
Judicial philosophy is the set of beliefs and values that a judge brings to the bench. It is shaped by a variety of factors, including the judge’s personal experiences, education, and legal training. Judicial philosophy can have a significant impact on judicial decisions, as it influences how a judge interprets the law and applies it to the facts of a case.
One example of how judicial philosophy can influence judicial decisions is in the area of criminal sentencing. Judges who believe in a more punitive approach to sentencing may be more likely to impose harsher sentences, even for nonviolent crimes. Judges who believe in a more rehabilitative approach to sentencing may be more likely to impose probation or other alternative sentences, particularly for first-time offenders.
The following example illustrates how judicial philosophy can impact people going through the court system:
A young man is arrested and charged with possession of marijuana. The young man is a first-time offender and has no prior criminal record. The prosecutor recommends that the young man be sentenced to six months in prison.
The judge in the case is a conservative jurist who believes in a punitive approach to sentencing. The judge sentences the young man to six months in prison, even though the prosecutor recommended a more lenient sentence.
The young man’s sentence is disproportionately harsh, given the nature of the offense and his lack of a prior criminal record. The judge’s judicial philosophy clearly influenced his decision to impose such a harsh sentence.
State Courts vs. Federal Courts
State courts are not as commonly recognized for their policymaking activities as the federal courts for a number of reasons. First, state courts are more numerous and diverse than federal courts. There are over 50 state court systems, each with its own unique set of laws and procedures. This makes it difficult to generalize about the policymaking activities of state courts.
Second, state courts are generally more focused on resolving individual disputes than on making broad policy statements. Federal courts, on the other hand, are more likely to hear cases that raise important constitutional questions or that have national implications.
Third, state courts are less visible than federal courts. Federal court cases are often covered by the national media, while state court cases are typically only covered by local media outlets. This lower level of visibility makes it less likely that state court decisions will be widely debated and discussed.
The following example illustrates how state courts can make significant policy decisions:
In 2014, the California Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in the case of People v. Scott. In Scott, the court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional in California. The court’s decision was based on its finding that the death penalty was applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.
The Scott decision was a major policy victory for opponents of the death penalty. It also had a significant impact on the criminal justice system in California, as it led to the commutation of the death sentences of over 700 inmates.
Conclusion
Judicial decisions are affected by a variety of factors, including judicial philosophy. Judicial philosophy can have a significant impact on the outcomes of cases, particularly in areas such as criminal sentencing.
State courts play an important role in the American judicial system. While state courts are not as commonly recognized for their policymaking activities as the federal courts, they can make significant policy decisions that have a major impact on the lives of individuals and communities.
