Courts are Independent Agents of Social Change - Essay Example

Courts are independent Agents of social Change Human social interactions are normally under some rules. In most cases, people come up with justice systems so that the vulnerable amongst the majority can be protected. This is normally the case in established democracies. By definition, the form of dispensation of justice in such democracies is normally through a retribution system. Even in cases where there is no democracy, there is normally a form of rule and social equality. Courts are described as justice systems through which retribution is passed as a judgement in relation to an offense committed or any form of accusation made targeting an individual. There are many sides of the argument when it comes to evaluating the importance of courts as justice institutions. For instance, in as much as they promote justice, equality, and the principles of social justice, there are occasional instances when the established institutions can be taken as being biased. The following discourse is going to delve into the position that the institutions play in social justice. In particular, the analysis seeks to identify whether the courts are systems that bring change as they are supposed to. As legal institutions, courts have been serving their purpose in established and just societies as the setups for offering justice. In addressing the topic under discussion, the paper takes the position that courts are free and independent platforms for introducing change. In addressing the importance of courts in contemporary societies, the discussion is going to refer to the opinions of other authors. For instance, Rahl’s book on democracy is quite relevant in addressing the social justice system amongst humans (1993). In normal democratic systems like in the United States, the system of justice is organised into hierarchies. In the case of America, the ultimate decision when it comes to legal judgements or decisions lies with the Supreme Court. Rahl argues that the court is an institution that should be used to protect the interest of the minorities (1993). This is because the majority can be favoured by established institution policies. In the case of bringing change, courts have been used to protect the interest of the majority. However, this view is also arguable. Change is normally brought through policy formulation. This is normally the jurisdiction of the legislature. However, courts act as legal advisers when it comes to having an interpretation of the constitution. Therefore, even in the interpretation of the constitution, the courts play a role in policy making. Therefore, when it comes to being agents of change, it can be said that they play a significant role. This is because the interpretation of the formulated polices rests on the courts. For instance, when it comes to setting precedence for legal cases on issues which are sensitive to the society, people usually look up to the courts. In the United States, it is normally the jurisprudence of the courts of appeal, or the high court to set a precedence which will have an eventual impact on the community. The case of Trayvon is a recent case which can be used as a classical example of the role that courts play in bringing change to the society. In this case, the courts were to protect the interest of both parties based on who was innocent. In as much as the general public felt that Trayvon had been a victim of racial discrimination or injustice, the court had a wise counsel as was seen in the judgement passed. At the end of the judgement, the courts cleared the white person who was accused of taking advantage of his position. In such instances, the courts can be relied upon to enact change in the society. The courts are supposed to be free from intimidation or pressure from the majority. Under such circumstances, the institutions normally act as the voice of the society. Therefore, they can also be perceived as the agents of change. Courts are political establishments. It is through politics that policies are formulated. In addition, the courts rule based on political influences. Because of the political nature of some legal proceedings, courts are at times compromised by political establishments. This has a very obvious reason. Firstly, in as much as high positions in the courts are normally through merit, political appointments have also become part of them. This is in addition to the fact that political patronage of the legal system is a reality in democratic societies. Therefore, in such circumstances, the courts can be used to serve the wants of the political class. In such occurrences, the change that is always an expectation of the courts is never realised. However, with good leadership, this should never be the case. The good leadership is only realised in established democracies. However, in countries which are emerging from instability, the courts can be used to serve the will of the people in power. In such cases, the courts would not be agents of change but an inhibition to change. This has been the observation in countries in Africa. For instance, when an incumbent sees opposition, the normal case is that the most eligible opposition leader is normally taken to court on some tramped up charges. Thereafter, such people are normally sentenced to long periods in jail just so that they cannot be an opposition to the incumbent. An example is in Uganda where the incumbent is Yoweri Museveni. In the last general election, he was facing opposition from Kenenisa Besigye. However, since the sitting president had powers, he manipulated the courts till the opposition leader got frustrated through the courts. In such a circumstance, the courts are not agents of change. The Supreme Court has an important role in influencing the laws that become policies in the country. According Casper, the courts can delay the formulation of policies by withholding the passing of critical judgements (2000). Casper refers to Dahl in analysing the legal approaches that are there in the American justice system (2000). Realistically, he argues that the courts are judged based on other established political systems. This is because the courts also have to serve the political establishments. Being the courts are judged based on the relationships that they have with other political establishments, it can be argued that the influence that the courts have in policy formulation is under the influence of the ruling class. Therefore, the change that is required cannot be realised with ease. In the justice system of the United States, judges are either elected or unappointed. Lovell and Lemieux questions whether judges are rulers or they just agents acting under the influence of those who appoint them (2012). This is the question that has dogged the legal system of the United States over the years. This is usually important when it comes to assessing the role of the judges in policy formulation. What is important in the justice system is the separation of the powers which are involved in the policy formulation. In view of the topical subject and reactions from scholars, the justice system should be fair enough in promoting social justice. The president of a democratic society is normally charged with the responsibility of making appointments in courts. Therefore, to a small extent, it can be said the courts are under the influence of the presidency. In such circumstances, the political leadership would be having a direct influence on the established legal systems. This is why the American system of legal retribution is normally influenced by the presidency. In a more direct way, the president will only appoint those individuals who will be friendly to his establishments. In such cases, it is very hard for the courts to be agents of change since they will be serving the interests of those who appoint them. Being that those who make the appointments normally have partisan interests, it will be very hard to say that the courts can bring change under such circumstances. The courts as legal establishments should be agents of change. The courts should be dissociated from political systems. This is because fairness is only achieved if the courts are left to operate without the influence of the political leadership. The United States is a society which is diverse in terms of culture and social settings. Therefore, the courts have an important role in the society since their sole role is to interpret the constitution. If they serve the function diligently, they will definitely act as agents of change. However, for the courts to serve their purpose, particularly in policy making, there has to be good leadership. Political dispensation is the start of good leadership. This is because political leaders play the role of appointing bodies when it comes to deciding on who serves on the supreme courts or even on the courts of appeal. References Casper, J. D. (2000). The Supreme court and national policy making. The Amerrican Political Sceince Review , 50-63. Dahl, R. (1993). Decision Making in a Democracy: The Supreme Court As a National Policy Maker. New York: Ardent Media Incorporated. Lovell, G., & Lemieux, S. (2012). Assessing Juristocracy: Are Judges Rulers or Agents? . Maryland Law Review, 100-120. Read More