2017University of Toronto Law JournalRequires access

Why judges should dissent

Peter W. Hogg, Ravi Amarnath

Open publisher page 4 citations

Abstract

This article discusses why judges at intermediate appellate courts should dissent when they are in disagreement with their colleagues as to either the outcome of a case or the reasons given to reach a particular decision. The authors argue that dissenting judgments promote individual judicial responsibility and demonstrate transparency as to how a decision was reached by a panel of judges. They also describe how dissenting judgments have the ability to potentially shape the law at different courts, including international courts. The article goes on to describe the challenges judges face when deciding whether to dissent. Specifically, the authors discuss how the politicization of judgments, the indeterminacy of decisions, and the fracturing of collegiality within a court can deter judges from writing a dissenting judgment.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article discusses why judges at intermediate appellate courts should dissent when they are in disagreement with their colleagues as to either the outcome of a case or the reasons given to reach a particular decision. The authors argue that dissenting judgments promote individual judicial responsibility and demonstrate transparency as to how a decision was reached by a panel of judges. They also describe how dissenting judgments have the ability to potentially shape the law at different courts, including international courts. The article goes on to describe the challenges judges face when deciding whether to dissent. Specifically, the authors discuss how the politicization of judgments, the indeterminacy of decisions, and the fracturing of collegiality within a court can deter judges from writing a dissenting judgment.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article discusses why judges at intermediate appellate courts should dissent when they are in disagreement with their colleagues as to either the outcome of a case or the reasons given to reach a particular decision. The authors argue that dissenting judgments promote individual judicial responsibility and demonstrate transparency as to how a decision was reached by a panel of judges. They also describe how dissenting judgments have the ability to potentially shape the law at different courts, including international courts. The article goes on to describe the challenges judges face when deciding whether to dissent. Specifically, the authors discuss how the politicization of judgments, the indeterminacy of decisions, and the fracturing of collegiality within a court can deter judges from writing a dissenting judgment.

Key concepts: Dissenting opinion, Dissent, Political science, Judicial opinion, Transparency (behavior), Law, Indeterminacy (philosophy), Law and economics

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Why judges should dissent — Research Paper | ScholarLens