Maintenance of capital doctrine
History of Doctrine
Doctrine is considered as framework, set of rules and steps that is established by means of precedent within the common law with which the judgment can be assessed in the provided legal case (Kerr, 2009). Doctrine emerges in case when the judge is making ruling and where the procedure is outlined and employed and also opportunity is offered to the like cases. When more judges makes utilization of the procedure then soon it becomes introduced as de facto method towards making decision on like situations (Grudem, 2009). Doctrine reflects that court needs to comply with judicial decisions in earlier situation when similar questions take place prior it in subsequent matters. In strict terms this can be stated that not doctrine possess greater authority but in some cases courts has binding by earlier cases decided.
Benefits of the Doctrine
Doctrine is considered as the one wherein the judge refer back to the earlier decisions in order to assist in deciding upon the similar cases in which the law as well as facts are not same. Doctrine in itself concerns with the influence as well as value of the decisions that are taken in past and prior legal experience. The major principle on which the doctrine depends is that hierarchy of the courts is required in case it needs to be operated. The major benefit of such is that it assist with the questions associated with predictability as there is rigidity followed in the judicial precedent (Klein, 2007). Such results in consistency as well as fairness wherein similar cases are deal with in same manner. Such fairness is significant as there is principle which needs to be assessed by all towards the justice and the courts. Another major benefit of doctrine is related with time saving. This is due to the reason that law is being found in the cases that set precedent and further the decisions are determined in the decisions of the senior courts within the hierarchy. The doctrine performs in an effective manner within most parts as it offers stability and consistency within the legal system (Minkov and Hofstede, 2011). The parties that involved in the trials as well as hearing can make determination that decisions are developed on the basis of precedents rather than personal view or arbitrary judgments. The development of the precedents is being done by the senior judges within the higher courts that offers them authority along with the experience (Doctrine, 2017).
Exceptions to the Doctrine
The exceptions to the doctrine is in case when there is inconsistency with the decision's of higher court. Further it has another exception that relates with one that is wrong in law. It has been assessed that all the cases that have inconsistent decisions are not considered as base in future of course of time (Shepherd, 2015). Thus in such case new decisions are being developed in relation with the case. Along with this doctrine is not applied in situation when things performed are not fair as per law. These are also not taken into account when making decisions in future course of time.
- Grudem, W.A., 2009. Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine. Harper Collins.
- Kerr, O.S., 2009. The case for the third-party doctrine. Michigan law review, pp.561-601.
- Klein, N., 2007. The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. Macmillan.
- Minkov, M. and Hofstede, G., 2011. The evolution of Hofstede's doctrine. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal. 18(1). pp.10-20.
- Shepherd, G.M., 2015. Foundations of the neuron doctrine. Oxford University Press.