1. Stare decisis is the tradition in law of giving great weight to precedents set in past cases as well as precedents set in higher level courts. While precedents are not the last word in a case they are usually the first and due to that fact set the tone for how a case develops.

For example say there is a civil case between mark and harry having to do with mark assaulting harry after harry was heard shouting bitch at mark in a public place.

Suppose the court decided that calling someone a "bitch" in a loud voice in public constituted fighting words and said person would be held liable for any damages resulting from an altercation preceding such an utterance.

Harry had to pay mark's medical bills.

Some time later a case was heard where jane and jill got into a fight. Witnesses had observed janes distinctive voice shout asshole just before jill threw a mean left hook and the fight was taken to the ground.

Now while it is not an official rule that the court will make the same decision for jane and jills case as it did for mark and harrys chances are, due to sticking with the tradition that stare decises lays out, that the court will rule the same way.

Perhaps jane has a very good lawyer who can positivly argue against the precedent set in mark v harry. The possibility is there for the lawyer to say while it is set that uttering a profanity has been shown to constitute fighting words perhaps it is the one who threw the first punch that should hold liability.

2. If it was a requirement in how law operates that past decisions had to be held to no matter the shifts of culture or the reasoning ability of judges themselves progress in the justice system would be stuck in the 1800s or however far back.

Even the constitution has been amended many times.

I cannot think of a single instance where total and complete adherence to past judicial decisions has ever lasted long in western civilization.

Slavery would still exist. The death penalty would never be overturned in the great deal of states where that has happened. We would still have hangings. We would still have a persons hand cut off for stealing a loaf of bread even.

American criminal justice is more than an eye for an eye, its a system that strives for fairness and honest dealings as often as possible.

Adhering strictly to the concept of stare decisis leads to the stagnation of true justice and im against that.

thank you.