Why can courts be relied on to reach similar decisions on issues?

The answer highlights the significance of the doctrines of stare decisis and precedent in the judicial system, which are fundamental concepts in legal reasoning. Stare decisis is Latin for "to stand by things decided," and it mandates that courts adhere to established precedent when making decisions on cases presenting similar facts or issues. This principle ensures consistency and predictability in the law, as lower courts are bound to follow the decisions made by higher courts within the same jurisdiction.

By relying on previous judgments, courts are able to maintain a coherent legal framework. This means that if an issue has already been legally determined, future cases with similar facts will likely result in the same legal outcome. The use of precedent is crucial in promoting fairness and stability in legal proceedings, reinforcing public confidence in the judicial system.

In contrast, other options highlight concepts that do not align with the rationale for courts reaching similar decisions. The absence of legal precedent would lead to unpredictability in rulings rather than reliance on known outcomes. Judicial discretion indeed allows judges some flexibility, but it may result in varied outcomes, undermining the principle of consistent legal interpretations. Treating all cases as unique would negate the application of established legal principles derived from prior cases, which is contrary to the purpose of following precedent.