What would it mean for the American system of criminal justice if stare decisis actually were an inexorable command or a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision?

If stare decisis were treated as an inexorable command in the American criminal justice system, it would lead to a rigid adherence to precedent, potentially stifling legal evolution and adaptability. Courts would be less inclined to consider the unique circumstances of individual cases or evolving societal values, risking unjust outcomes. This could undermine the flexibility necessary for the law to address new challenges and injustices effectively, ultimately eroding public trust in the judicial system. Such a mechanical application of precedent might also diminish the role of judicial interpretation, reducing the judiciary's ability to serve as a check on legislative and executive power.