Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Course
Part I: Thesis
Based on various perspectives, I believe that judges have moral reasons to adhere to sub-
optimal result cases. The judge's reasons in suboptimal-result cases to adhere to the law prevail
over her reasons to hear and decide the case, generating a moral reason to adherence. Certainly,
the argument for this thesis can be centered on the fact that there are explicit negative
implications of judicial deviation patterns from the law. These are the implications that deviation
patterns have on the decisions made by other major legal actors, particularly the decisions made
by judges in future cases. It should be noted that deviation in suboptimal-result cases motivates
cases. Even though adherence in sub-optimal results case is suboptimal, it does not discourage
the judicious expectations of the losing party. And so, in suboptimal-result cases, the systematic
While systemic implications provides the most essential reasons for judges to adhere to
the law in suboptimal-result cases, I must oppose some objections to this thesis. The non-obvious
objection is based on the fact that deviation cannot typically result in noticeable systemic
implications. In fact, the implications can only arise in extraordinary cases where the non-party is
unfavorably affected by a deviant decision. The connection between deviation and systemic
implications is weak and does not warrant judges to adhere to sub-optimal result cases. It is
worth mentioning that when an action does not have noticeable implications, then there is no
justifiable reason for or against performing it. This reasoning is especially significant as the
instant implications of an adherent decision are characteristically important than the systemic
Besides, the judge who abide by the law in suboptimal-result cases considerably affect
the losing party, and repeatedly other recognizable parties in the case. In the same vein,
adherence is advantageous to the winning side, however, in suboptimal-result cases, the losing
party suffers more than how the winner benefits. Nonetheless, there are some suboptimal result
cases where the judges are morally allowed to deviate. The reason for deviation could be to
avoid repercussions that were only moderately suboptimal. Thus, the objection from the systemic
implications has a substantial resolution for any individual who does not support deviation in
suboptimal-result cases. This is the same logic to most observers and writers who seem entirely
The response to the above non-obvious objection entails accepting the more impact and
actuality of indiscernible effects. It can be said that a deviant decision imposes indiscernible
implication on the legal system at a large, regardless of its unnoticeable consequences on the
concerned parties. Even though the deviant decision could impose a risk of substantial detriment,
very few or no deviant decisions that can affect other optimal-result cases. Any particular deviant
decision generates a slight risk on the case. Overall, these reasons cannot take precedence in
most of the suboptimal-result cases. The judges in such cases have strong moral reasons to
observe the law. As a matter of fact, the negative implications of adherence, on the losing party
and other related parties, are mostly direct and significant, in suboptimal-result cases. As such,
the adherence reasons are strong enough to outweigh the judge's obligation and desire to deviate,