Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0072 found in ordinances, regulations, statutes, case decisional law and the like are subordinate to and inferior to Constitutional mandates and principles. In those instances where there is conflict between . a statute and the Constitution or between decisional case law and the Constitution, then certainly the Constitution must prevail under our 1 system of jurisprudence. It is the absolute responsibility of every ~ Judge to follow such reasoning and to place the dictates of the Con- stitution above all else bearing in mind the realistic and actual common sense principles of justice, fairness, the interests of our society and logical reasoning. Counsel for the Defense in this case have argued that this Court is bound by precedent in previous case decisions concerning this matter. First of all, it must be noted that this case raises certain issues which have not previously been raised in similar situations in the Courts of the State of Florida as well as in the United States Courts. Stare decisis is not a rule of law. It is a matter of judicial policy. It has been stated that the rationale behind this policy is the need td promote certainty, stability and predictability of law. It is the general policy of the Courts not to lightly overrule or change a precedent, especially where the precedent has been followed for a Iong period of years. Sometimes it is said that it is not for the Courts, but for the legislature to abolish or change a rule of law that has become settled by judicial prescedent for a long period of time. But it has also been said that it is neither realistic nor consistent with the common law tradition and perhaps other legal traditions to wait upon the legis- lature to correct an outmoded rule of decisional law. Stare decisis is to be a flexible judicial policy. A court may deviate from a precedent for various reasons. Paramount among these is that a precedent should not be followed where the principle of law established by it appears unreasonable, wrong, improper or has become an anachron- ism because of. the changed conditions of life, society and trends in law. The policy of adhering to precedent should be deviated from where adherence to precedent is likely to be of greater mischief -2- en~n~r.UO) O~CL