Exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgements

Nature

The exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgments refers to the disconnect between legal decision-making and public input. This problem arises when judicial criteria are determined by a limited group of legal professionals, often lacking representation from diverse societal perspectives. Consequently, this can lead to judgments that do not reflect the values, needs, or experiences of the broader community. Such exclusion may undermine public trust in the legal system, perpetuate systemic biases, and hinder the pursuit of justice, as the law may fail to adapt to the evolving norms and expectations of society.

Incidence

The civil rights movement, born out of demonstrations initiated by Martin Luther King, is a classic example of a response to the closing off of the judicial process from the people, depriving them of the socially established channels for dealing with grievances and disputes.

Claim

When the judicial system is experienced as closed, people have no recourse but to seek solutions through unconventional channels. Present-day covenants and codes do not reflect what the individual experiences as the social reality in which he or she participates. The processes of judicial review and creation of legislation have so far neither enabled people to articulate their understanding of the malfunctioning of the system nor to participate in the re-creation of legal principles. The social order is unable to transform the present situation into viable alternatives for the future.

Counter-claim

The notion that the masses should influence judicial criteria is misguided. Courts are designed to uphold the rule of law, relying on trained professionals who interpret complex legal principles. Public opinion can be volatile and uninformed, risking the integrity of justice. Judicial independence is crucial for fair outcomes, free from populist pressures. Prioritizing the masses in legal criteria undermines the very foundation of a balanced and impartial judicial system, which is essential for societal stability.