what are the advantages and disadvantages of law-making by courts?

The Government formulates Statute Law. Judges/courts interpret the statute law. Laws are written up (scribed) by "clever people" in the house of commons, therefore even the choice of words used are open to literal interpretation, and the intent of the meaning of the words as scribed is open to interpretation of individual judges. The appeal courts and Law Lords set precedence in law. This is done by hearing the case and when deemed unfair, taking into account meaning and interpretations, the higher court can "re-write" the law from the intended statute. I believe this is a fair system because courts have to obey the precedent set by the higher court. AFTER HEARING ALL THE INFO. Where there is no ambiguity in the meaning of the statute a judge must follow that meaning regardless. EXAMPLE: He may feel that a murderer had mitigating circumstance not to warrant a life sentence, but he has NO choice because the statute is clear > only a life sentence can be given if guilty of murder. Also the Dignitas/suicide issue > public opinion is strongly confused over the law on suicide and assisting suicide. The law Lords have sent the Statute back to parliament to decide and re-write the law because it is so ambiguous they(JUDGES) want clarity and changes to properly interpret the law.
 
The disadvantages of law-making by court is that the courts were not designed to make laws and the people do not appoint the justices. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not make it. defintion? of what? The courts make statutes, which are laws, which are supposed to be guidelines to follow, this tradition comes from English common law when the judges would ride the circuits and sentence prisoners.
 
Back
Top