i am a student for malaysia,taylors college.I am doing an assignment and my research is about judge should be given more directionary power.Judges given more power is to save money to employ lawyers?Or is it because the judges are not easily influenced,experienced and can understand the case better?

Should judges be given more discretionary power?

Are you kidding?

Pompous asses accountable to no one. Petty little men and women dressed in brief authority who arrogate to themselves power without effective accountability.

What we desperately need is a better class of judiciary.

We are attracting a lot of students are we not? let me tell you what the university of life has told me, no shouted at me!
Those who judge both in local courts and every court should not be expected to hand down justice, and they do not!
You can see true evil crimes bring hand slap sentences and a homeless person get 12 months for a theft not unlike our early settlers who got life here for a loaf of bread.
A young and rich lady in the news shows clearly justice in other country's too is based on wealth, and the personal views of some one who has zero understanding of the community's views.
I will believe in judges after at least ten of them and twenty of the lessor type spend time in gaol for the dreadful insulting rulings they hand down.
Make it fool proof set the outcomes so even these idiots can not get it wrong.

stevenlm, and where would you be getting that better class of judge from, then? not gonna use homo sapiens, i take it? the elf in the bottom of your garden has volunteered to take care of all of us, as soon as we post him our bank account details?

the solution to most political problems is the same: get it out of secrecy, get it out of the hands of professionals, get it into the light of public knowledge, and consult many people from all walks of life.

yep, democracy.

I suggest "no" if you mean usurping the role of other participants.

Judges can be seen as clever legal experts and lawyers as dishonest and juries as not as clever. From this standpoint the solution to the perceived problem is to let the judges have free reign.

However judge's typically overpriveleged background means that their life knowledge is insufficient for the role to extend beyond their legal contribution.

Judges claim that they gain a type of vicarious experience from looking at other people's lives but I believe that that is largely incorrect as they aren't in the shoes of the people that they are judging.

I firmly believe that the ivory tower images of judges is justified.

For example. In one Australian case a prisoner punched a policeman resulting in a scuffle and both falling downstairs onto a concrete floor. Up to an including the commencement of the fall there were adequate numbers of witnesses. However after the fall a type of judge acting in an investigatory / inquisitorial role had to consider whether the policeman's knee hit the prisoner during the fall when they hit the floor. Another police officer said it looked like he fell on top and the policeman involved later figured that must have happened. The prisoner suffered an injury consistent with that (among other things) occurring. The Magistrate decided that the policeman's knee didn't hit the prisoner because the policeman would have later clearly recollected where all his limbs were, immediately after being punched in the face,struggling, while falling at 9.8m/s2 (the acceleration of falling objects), and focussing on the prisoner's head which he said came dangerously close to a filing cabinet. He didn't recall. Another factor influencing the recollection of fine detail of the event for the policeman was that a significant emotional experience occurred between needing to recollect and the incident occurring.

I invite you to consider whether someone with broad experience would form a similar opinion and whether it meshes with real life experience. If you take a certain view you will strongly see my point.

Part 1
It isn’t as simple as may look at first.
My website http://schorel-hlavka.com indicates the various books I have published or will publish about the High Court of Australia.
Constitutionally the judges of the high Court of Australia have defined judicial powers but some of the lawyers now appointed to the High Court of Australia not only lack proper education in constitutional law but I would say are incompetent in constitutional law, and the 14-11-2006 WorkChoices judgment by the Court was if not one of great stupidity then of treachery against the people. My website shows a book I published in regard of WorkChoices and this book canvas the judgment and expose how the judges manipulated statements and ignored “CIVIL RIGHTS”, State legislative powers”, etc.
Because the judges are, as I view it, in bed with the Federal Government, nothing will be done against those judges. Albeit I expose it in my various books.
With judges of other Courts, they are entitled to NULLIFIY Commonwealth law and State law if they deem it in the interest of the general community. In fact this is embedded in the Constitution. However, what we have isn’t justice but where judges are applying DOUBLE STANDARDS in their rulings, often pending on if the party has or has not a lawyer.
I have exposed this in the past with judges objecting me to be listening into the court case because of my conduct to expose it in subsequent cases, but they could not deny my legal right to be in the courtroom.
Slowly, we have had that lawyers have taken charge to prevent any non-lawyer to become a judge and so prevent members of the general community to adjudicate. Hence the injustice. Even with juries, the judges are deceiving the jurors as to their legal rights, and I for one called up for jury service immediately exposed this. Well, they then advised me I was no longer needed and they are not calling me again either. This, as the judges are manipulating the jurors and I was not going to stand for that.