Exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgements

Nature

The exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgments refers to the lack of public participation or influence in establishing the standards and principles that guide court decisions. This problem arises when legal frameworks and judicial reasoning are shaped predominantly by elites, legal professionals, or political actors, rather than reflecting the values and perspectives of the broader population. Such exclusion can undermine the legitimacy, fairness, and representativeness of the judiciary, potentially leading to public distrust, social alienation, and decisions that fail to address the needs and aspirations of society at large.

Background

The exclusion of the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgements emerged as a recognized concern during the 20th century, as legal scholars and civil society groups observed persistent gaps between judicial standards and public values. Notably, global debates intensified following high-profile cases where judicial reasoning appeared disconnected from societal expectations, prompting international discourse on participatory justice. This phenomenon has since been documented across diverse legal systems, highlighting its relevance to democratic legitimacy and legal reform.

Incidence

The civil rights movement, born out of demonstrations initiated by Martin Luther King, is a classic example of a response to the closing off of the judicial process from the people, depriving them of the socially established channels for dealing with grievances and disputes.

Claim

When the judicial system is experienced as closed, people have no recourse but to seek solutions through unconventional channels. Present-day covenants and codes do not reflect what the individual experiences as the social reality in which he or she participates. The processes of judicial review and creation of legislation have so far neither enabled people to articulate their understanding of the malfunctioning of the system nor to participate in the re-creation of legal principles. The social order is unable to transform the present situation into viable alternatives for the future.

Counter-claim

The idea that excluding the masses from setting criteria in judicial judgments is a significant problem is misguided. Judicial decisions require expertise, impartiality, and adherence to the law—qualities not guaranteed by popular opinion. Allowing the masses to dictate legal criteria risks undermining justice with bias and emotion. Our legal system’s integrity depends on informed, principled judgment, not the shifting whims of public sentiment. This so-called problem is, in reality, a necessary safeguard.