Judge Dredd, here we come

The papers reported the UK's new rules on assisted suicide this morning. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6845582.ece

I will blog the issue of assisted suicide separately since it is an important futures issue in its own right. I think one of the most disturbing things here is that this hasn't been passed through the democratic process via parliament, but rolled out by the DPP. If it was unique in that respect, I wouldn't worry too much, but it isn't. Baroness Deech has just raised attention to the fact that current divorce rules didn't get decided by parliament but by the judiciary too. It was judges, not our elected representatives, who came up with the current notion that wealth should be shared equally when a marriage fails, regardless of contribution or how much each party brought to the party. It is judges who interpret the EU's human rights laws in the UK and resulted in the ridiculous imbalance we have now between the rights of culprit and victim. Other countries don't seem to have the same problem. The local interpretation of EU law for the UK should be done in parliament, preferably by reference to politicians who were part of the original process and party to the spirit of the law when it was first debated.

Important laws should be made by parliament. It is its main purpose.We elect people to represent us, and they debate amongst each other what is the best way forwards. Then, once our representatives have decided what our laws should be, the judiciary is there as part of the implementation process. It should not be the other way round. In the suicide case, poor wording made the law very unclear, and people couldn't know whether assisting in a suicide by accompanying a relative to Switzerland would result in prosecution or not. Laws should always be clear, and say precisely what was intended when the politicians have finished their debate. It is parliament's job to make sure they get the law written up correctly, but if they don't, and an ambiguity becomes clear, then it is certainly their job to clarify the intent as needed to make sure the wishes of the people are properly implemented in law. It is not the role of the judiciary to do so, and should never be. Their job is clear, to  decide whether or not people are following or breaking it.

By following the current path, we are heading towards a state where judges make the law by themselves, where we end up with the Judge Dredd scenario, where a guy with a big gun says 'I am the law'. We must not let democracy evaporate by allowing our elected representatives to neglect their jobs, letting judges do it for them so that they can make someone else take the blame. Once this process becomes too regular, politicians will allow it more and more, trying to stay in power by abdicating the tough and potentially unpopular decisions. Then the most important things in life will be decided by Judge Dredd, instead of the people we elected to do the job.