What does the court mean when it says "Stare decisis is not an inexorable command; rather it is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision"?
Stare decisis is a Latin word that means to stand by what has already been decided. Therefore, in criminal law it is defined as the adherence of the current court system with the principles that has already been established by previous court decisions or rulings. In other words, it can be stated to be a principle of policy. Hence, it promotes reliance on the judicial decisions and brings about the contribution of the integrity of the judicial process (Schmalleger, Hall and Dolatowski, 2010, p.9). This fact can be observed in the case of Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254, 265-266 (1986) whose precedent was used in other cases with similar crimes.
Inexorable is stated to be unstoppable or unpersuaded. Therefore, when the courts state that stare decisis is not an inexorable command, rather it is a principle of policy and not a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision (Schmalleger, Hall and Dolatowski, 2010, p.9). These words mean that the courts have the duty to respect all the preceding rulings and try to determine the importance of those decisions made and try to follow them. Thereby, one can state that stare decisis is a principle that guides law enforcement officers and the courts system on a way forward with regards to cases. It also provides the court officials an opportunity to overlook and change some of the decisions made earlier. Therefore, it provides the courts an opportunity to overrule some of the preceding laws that seems to contain errors. An example can be observed from the case of Payne v. Tennessee, U.S. Supreme Court, 1991 501 U.S. 808, where the decision from a previous cases with similar crime was overruled (Schmalleger, Hall and Dolatowski, 2010, p.2). Therefore, a new ruling was made that would set as an example for future cases with similar crimes.
What would it mean for the American system of criminal justice, if stare decisis actually was an "inexorable command" or a "mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision"?
If stare decisis was an inexorable command or mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision, it would cause the current criminal justice system not to be in the manner that it is in the present. Therefore, the present criminal justice system follows a distinct principles and laws. Hence, without it then stability in the criminal justice system will not be able to be maintained. Thus, efficient work will not be done and people’s rights will be violated. The criminal justice system will have a hard time arguing about policies when there is no foundation that they can be able to back it up. This fact means that if any ruling that had been previously made contains errors, then it will not have a chance for it to be overturned. Therefore, making it impossible for any input to be made by the criminal justice system (Schmalleger, Hall and Dolatowski, 2010, p.8). Therefore, to be able to overturn a precedent law is very important because it will help keep up with the ever changing world and the present norms.
In the past, there were many things that contributed to the ruling of particular cases. Therefore, some of the rights of the accused criminals were violated or ignored. This is because most people believed that the victim’s family are the ones who had a right to air their grievance and loss in the court rooms. As a result, victim impact testimonies were always issued and had an enormous impact on the ruling of the cases. However, this move violates the eighth amendment, which prohibits any capital sentencing jury or law enforcement officers from considering the victim impact evidence that is related to the emotional turmoil of the victim’s family or the character of the victim (Schmalleger, Hall and Dolatowski, 2010, p.3). This is because this evidence does not have any significant proof of why a criminal offense took place. This is what led to the ruling of Booth v. Maryland, U.S. 496 (1987) and the South Carolina v. Gathers, 490 U.S. 805 (1989) cases, which were overturned (Schmalleger, Hall and Dolatowski, 2010, p.4). However, if these types of cases were not overturned, then many people would have been convicted for capital punishments because of the victim’s family influence on the jury and the law enforcement officers. Thereby, hindering the criminal justice objectives and policies.
Reference
Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E. and Dolatowski, J. J. (2010). Criminal Law Today, Fourth Edition. Prentice Hall, 1-9.
