should judges make law?

[cynthia881001]

Hi. I'm doing a research on this topic 'should judges make law?’ In my opinion, I think that judges shouldn't make law. This is because:
A) Undemocratic law-making. Judges are not directly accountable to the community for the important case-law decisions they make.
b) Retrospective law-making. Judges can only make law after an event has happened.
c) Against doctrine of separation of power. Judges do not make law; they only interpret and apply the law. Parliament is the sovereign law-maker. The judicial bodies are overstepping their theoretical constitutional role.
d) Against doctrine of precedent. Judges should adhere to doctrine of precedent.
e) case-law is not well-debated. There is no debating in the process of making case-law.
f) Judges cannot be dismissed even if they make a bad case-law. Under Section 72(ii), judges only can be dismissed by parliament for proven misbehavior and incapacity.

I would kindly appreciate if you could state your opinion on the issue – “Should judges make law?” clearly below and provide valid reasons.

Thanks for your precious time.

[Porcelaindoll]

I disagree with your statement that judges should not make law. I think that judges should be allowed to make law even though it is against the Doctrine of Separation of Power.
Because :

a) The constitutional law is outdated and is shaped by broad and vague terms. Therefore, laws made by judges could breathe life into the constitution.
b) It ensures consistency. (Doctrine of Precedent)
c) It can easily respond to new and unique cases because of its flexibility.

That's all I can say as I am not very knowledgeable in this area.

[JETX]

Originally Posted by Porcelaindoll

That's all I can say as I am not very knowledgeable in this area.

That was clear from your post.

And though we don't normally do homework.... the FACT is judges are NOT allowed to 'make law' (thought hey often do). The RIGHT to make law is reserved for the legislature.