Student’s ID

Course

Do judges have moral reasons to adhere in sub-optimal result cases?

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

injudicious judges to deviate in other cases, probably misidentifying them as suboptimal-result

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

reasons leads to adherence rather than a deviation.

Part II: Non-obvious Objection

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

implications of a deviant decision.

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

confident that judges act impermissibly if they deviate in suboptimal-result cases.

Part III: Response to the Non-obvious Objection

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,

hence, they bring about a considerable reason to adhere.