Greill
16-09-2006, 03:28
I am trying to come up with a model for a common law judicial system in which jurisprudence and precedent are the driving force behind the law. For a historical example, I have in mind the early years of the British common law system, in which astute lawyers compiled the past decisions of judges and published references to be tried in future, related cases. Basically, this would be a decentralized court system that would depend on the various parts of the court "web" in evolving and determining the proper application of law.
Now, I have a problem. I believe that appelate courts are necessary for miscarriages of justice, or if a rogue court is going out of control and disregarding the law. But I have an aversion to appellate courts, as I think that, due to their superior position, they have more of an opportunity to ignore precedent and declare rule however they feel without regard to the opinion of the lower courts. I most certainly do not want an all-powerful top court like the SCOTUSA, which is relatively invulnerable and a monopoly on all laws. Could anyone suggest a remedy to this problem, so that my judicial system would be a web instead of a pyramid in its style? Thank you in advance.
Now, I have a problem. I believe that appelate courts are necessary for miscarriages of justice, or if a rogue court is going out of control and disregarding the law. But I have an aversion to appellate courts, as I think that, due to their superior position, they have more of an opportunity to ignore precedent and declare rule however they feel without regard to the opinion of the lower courts. I most certainly do not want an all-powerful top court like the SCOTUSA, which is relatively invulnerable and a monopoly on all laws. Could anyone suggest a remedy to this problem, so that my judicial system would be a web instead of a pyramid in its style? Thank you in advance.