Courts in common law systems decide cases as they decided like cases in the past—even if they believe they decided those past cases wrongly. What, if anything, justifies this practice? I defend two main claims. The first is that fairness favors treating like cases alike if that means treating them correctly. The second is that, in general, a court is as likely to decide an instant case correctly as it was to decide a previous and like case correctly. Together, these claims tell us that departing from and following precedent are equally likely to yield a correct decision, whereas following precedent may also yield a fair decision. Adhering to precedent is the dominant alternative, as a result. Fairness therefore justifies the practice of precedent. While this conclusion is not original, my argument for it is.

普通法体系中的法院会按照过去案件的判决方式来判决案件，即使他们认为自己对过去案件的判决是错误的。如果有的话，是什么证明了这种做法的合理性？我捍卫两个主要主张。首先，公平有利于以同样的方式对待类似的案件，如果这意味着正确地对待它们。第二，一般来说，法院正确判决当前案件的可能性与正确判决先前类似案件的可能性相同。总之，这些主张告诉我们，背离和遵循先例同样可能产生正确的决定，而遵循先例也可能产生公平的决定。因此，遵循先例是主要的选择。因此，公平性证明了先例实践的合理性。虽然这个结论不是原创的，但我的论点是原创的。