Full Answer Section

If stare decisis were an inexorable command, the legal system would become stagnant and unable to address new challenges or correct past errors. The Court would be bound by outdated decisions, even if they were unjust or harmful. This would undermine the rule of law and the pursuit of justice.

The Supreme Court, as the highest court in the land, should exercise greater discretion in applying stare decisis than lower courts. This is because the Supreme Court has the power to shape the law and correct errors made by lower courts. However, even the Supreme Court should be mindful of the importance of stability and predictability in the law.

When deciding whether to adhere to a precedent, the Supreme Court should consider several factors, including:

• The quality of the reasoning: Was the original decision well-reasoned and based on sound legal principles?
• Workability of the precedent: Has the precedent proven to be workable and effective in practice?
• Reliance on the precedent: Have individuals and institutions relied on the precedent in making decisions?
• Changes in societal values and legal principles: Have societal values or legal principles changed since the precedent was established?

Comparing Payne and Lawrence

In Payne v. Tennessee, the Court adhered to precedent and upheld the admissibility of victim impact evidence in capital sentencing. However, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court overruled a previous decision and struck down laws criminalizing consensual same-sex sexual activity.

The Court’s decision in Lawrence can be explained by several factors. First, societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships had changed significantly since the earlier decision. Second, the Court recognized that the right to privacy, as established in previous cases, protected individuals from government interference in their private lives.

Strict Liability and Due Process

Strict liability crimes, such as statutory rape, have been criticized for their potential to punish individuals who lack the requisite mens rea, or criminal intent. However, proponents argue that these laws are necessary to protect vulnerable populations, particularly children.

A strict liability statute may raise due process concerns if it is overly broad or fails to provide adequate notice of what conduct is prohibited. However, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of strict liability statutes in certain circumstances, particularly when public safety is at stake.

In the case of statutory rape, the state’s interest in protecting children may outweigh the defendant’s due process rights. However, it is important to ensure that strict liability laws are narrowly tailored and do not impose disproportionate punishment.

Impact of Clean Water Act Changes

The changes to the Clean Water Act in 2017 have had a significant impact on criminal prosecutions for water pollution. These changes have narrowed the scope of federal jurisdiction over wetlands and other waters, potentially limiting the government’s ability to pursue criminal charges against individuals and corporations that pollute these waters.

While these changes may reduce the number of criminal prosecutions, it is important to ensure that environmental regulations are still effective in protecting water quality and public health.