In response to the above question I will be discussing the influence that Judges have in deciding cases, I will show what creative role they play. Judges as people know, play an important part in today's legal system and always have done in common law countries, England etc, most of common law is judge made. " this means that there is a an important body of rules and doctrines practices, which developed over time through case law and which cannot be tied to any statutory text. " The sphere of influence that judges have with regards to the legal system is quite surprising.
Below are case references that indicate how laws in common law have been changed by judges. One of the main cases, which have been brought to my attention, is Wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm: An act tending to pervert the court of justice: commentary by judge: failure to call witnesses: criminal justice and public order act 1994: cumulative effect: unfairness. Law is often thought as something that is already in existence and that judges are supposed to sentence according to the law.
It is said that judges should be able to set the law for everyone to follow this is because the common laws put to much emphasis on judges, but then at the same time there is a lot of opposition that we should stick to the old laws and not make up new ones. Judges should be open minded to listen to both sides and not be biased, they should also be not corrupt, and unprejudiced, a judge who has all these values is an impartial judge. CASE STUDY! Judges can also be creative as they can reverse and alter a decision made in any particular court case.
This occurs quite often in Law. At the highest level What judges really do, according to the realists, is decide cases according to how the facts of the cases strike them and not because legal rules require particular results: judges are largely "fact-responsive" rather than "rule-responsive" in reaching decisions. How a judge responds to the facts of a particular case is determined by various psychological and sociological factors, both conscious and unconscious.
The final decision then, is the product not so much of "law" (which permits more than one outcome to be justified) but of these psychosocial factors, ranging from the political ideology to the institutional role to the personality of the judge. Therefore the legacy of realism in both the practice and teaching law consists of phenomena like these: lawyers now recognise that judges are influenced by more than legal rules: judges and lawyers openly consider the policy or political implications of legal rules and decisions: law texts now routinely consider the economic, political, and historical context of judicial decisions.
Judges are encouraged to have a more flexible approach, emphasising more on principle rather than rule and precedent, which is why parliament has no rejections to judges making law in some areas of society. CASE STUDY! There is fair amount of evidence that say in this discussion to say that judges when making judgements are able to do what they think is right and are within their power to update and change the law to a certain level.
Some judges to appear to see the need to take these psychosocial factors, ranging from the political ideology to the institutional role to the personality into consideration when deciding a case also they try and change and update these common laws when deciding a case for better justice in the world by also considering the social needs and abstract demands. Some judges see it from societies point of view rather than feel the need to be constructive and creative, and try and use their views as well.