Why are common law legal systems so retarded?
I'm looking at South Carolina crimes and offenses, and chapter 3 (Offenses Against The Person) has 82 (EIGHTY-TWO) pages in a fucking Word document, font size 11.
45,000 thousand fucking words. One chapter.
In comparison, from where I come from, entire Criminal Code has 155 pages.
>>430090
>flexibility and judicial balancing of power against the rest of the state is bad because someone might have to read more.
Were your mother and father brother and sister?
Pleb
>>430096
I didn't even mention shit like precedents (tens of thousands of precedents).
ONE CHAPTER OF YOUR CRIMINAL CODE OF ONE FEDERAL ENTITY HAS 45000 WORDS
Did American jurists ever hear about concept of legal brevity?
>>430124
A lot more is expected out of a common court proceeding than a civil court proceeding. Judges have enormously more power, and that flexibility comes with a cost in complexity.
If you don't get that this is the tradeoff, you are quite literally too stupid to have an opinion on the matter.
>>430124
As opposed to civil law trying to create precedents that competently apply to every possible situation which could happen, made by a legislature that doesn't have any actual experience presiding over court cases?
>durrr why does law have so many words
Because humans are complicated. Where exactly do you come from, OP?
>>430152
Your system makes law unnecessarily complex while offering very little practical advantage.
Prove me wrong.
>enormously more power
Actually they don't. They're tied by precedents, as well as promulgated laws (mentioned in OP). In France and Italy for example issuing a sentence based on precedent is forbidden.
Judges interpret law which is written.
In effect, our judges have more freedom than your judges.
>>430154
>apply to every possible situation
I'm from Serbia.
Opening post of this thread was about codified law.
And I told you: our criminal code (criminal codes in rest of Europe are similar) has 155 pages.
One chapter of SC criminal code has 82 pages.
>>430090
The law probably started out quite simple. But life is not simple and over time the law has become complex as it has needed to adapt to the times and close loopholes which were usually discovered when a defendant used them to get off.
Don't forget: civil law is inquisitorial, with a powerful judge whose role is to get to the truth, whereas the common law is adversarial, where two sides present their versions of events and the judge or jury simply have to decide whose version is right.
>>430199
And over here, they interpret the law as is written, as well as precedent, which is rarely cut and dry apply.
Furthermore, sentencing for criminal issues are always given as a range, not a number, and, what you seem to be not grasping, is that precedents are judicially created, not artifacts of legislature. Which means that you divide lawmaking power between two bodies, crimping either of their abilities to develop into a tyrannical apparatus.
And it is pretty simple, as long as you can read, which I assure you, most judges and lawyers can do.
So it is not unnecessarily complex, and it offers considerable practical advantage, both in flexibility and in guarding against a tyrannical legislature.
>>430199
Corruption is quite high in Serbia, and organized crime is also a major problem. Is your system really doing you any good? Common law would mean furthering the separation of powers. Your only arguments seems to be an appeal to simplicity.
>>430255
>are always given as a range
It's same in Europe.
>is that precedents are judicially created
And buttressed by codified law of insane size, as shown in OP.
>crimping either of their abilities to develop into a tyrannical apparatus
Except that doesn't really connect. Go to /pol/ now, they are going mad over some 2000 pages of some new laws passed by your Congress.
2000 pages of fucking law, in one session. Do you feel that's normal?
My whole point is, you're approaching this from theoretical angle. Yes, judges creating law sounds nice. Yes, law being created by two independent entities sounds nice.
But you're talking about 200 or more years of legal history. By now, your judges aren't really creating law anymore, they're simply doing same their European counterparts are doing, only withing a far more complex framework, which makes law nuclear physics-tier subject for a layman.
>>430336
You think problem is law? Problem is insane corruption, lack of application of law, political corruption and so on. Law sadly doesn't do much to root out systematic corruption.
But why use Serbia as an example?
Look at German criminal code (Balkans fall within Germanic-Roman law sphere):
>http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html
I'm also talking about style here. This is what law is. Legal brevity, as I said.
In fact, your legal trends are more like some futile attempts of civil law in past, for example Prussian ALR which had 19,000 or something provisions.
Your law is unnecessarily complex.
>>430427
>And buttressed by codified law of insane size, as shown in OP.
Except that the codified law isn't actually all that codified. I know you didn't bother reading through it all (Too hard!) but common law statutes always deal in mushy terms, of "reasonableness" and "timeliness" and other grey apparati meant to be filled in by judicial action.
>But you're talking about 200 or more years of legal history. By now, your judges aren't really creating law anymore, they're simply doing same their European counterparts are doing, only withing a far more complex framework, which makes law nuclear physics-tier subject for a layman.
No, actually, they're not you imbecile. Let me give you a concrete example, since you apparently don't like theory.
>Civil law country
>Statute you're accused of violating
>Go before judge
>Argue your case
>Judge finds your argument persuasive
>You get let off
>Guy across the hall is accused of same thing
>Makes same argument before a different judge
>That judge doesn't find the argument persuasive,
>He is found guilty and goes to prison.
>Common law country
>Statute you're accused of violating
>Go before judge
>Argue your case
>Judge finds your argument persuasive
>You get let off
>Guy across the hall is accused of same thing
>Makes same argument before different judge
>That judge doesn't find the argument persuasive
>Appeals the ruling because with an identical argument, someone else got off
>Case goes before an appellate court, who make a decision one way or another.
>This will be followed in the event of future similar cases.
See how the common law system adds predictability? Which is usually hailed as a good thing?
>>430463
>I know you didn't bother reading through it all
Can you blame me? It's 45,000 words.
>but common law statutes always deal in mushy terms, of "reasonableness" and "timeliness" and other grey apparati meant to be filled in by judicial action.
So you're saying they can't be precise, while using 45,000 words per chapter? Oh wow, it's even worse than I thought.
>Go before judge
Since we're talking about criminal law, you don't go before one judge. Several judges preside over one case (depending on case of course, and country).
>He is found guilty and goes to prison.
What is appeal.
>adds predictability
Earlier you were going ''muh judges muh freedom''.
>>430154
>he doesnt base his laws on a-priori universal principles of justice
>BUT... WHAT IF THE CAR THAT HIT THE FARMER'S PIG ON THE THIRD OF THE MONTH WHILE GOING BACK TO CURCH WAS RED AND NOT BLUE?
>>430463
>Guy across the hall is accused of same thing
>Makes same argument before a different judge
>That judge doesn't find the argument persuasive,
>He is found guilty and goes to prison.
lol what is jurisprudence
>>430427
How the hell can you just casually dismiss the connection between lack of application + political corruption and the powers of legislature in a civil law system? It may not be a sufficient basis for corruption and authoritarianism alone, but it sure helps.
>>430508
>I will make the unfounded assumptions that my standards of justice are universal
>I can give a completely fabricated example that supports my POV
>>430531
So judges can't be corrupt in USA? Wow, that's a bold claim to make.
Besides...even if every court in country is corrupt and clearly ignores law, you can go to ECHR and make your case there. ECHR overrides national law (and precedents apply on that instance).
>>430544
You mean outrageous assumptions like pacta sunt servanda and nemo dat?
In any way, this assures coherence, brevity, comprehensiveness, intuitiveness to the law, which helps the public to know the law without the need of a legal expert, also known as legal security.
>>430606
>nemo dat
Nemo plus iuris transfere potest quam ipse habet?
What's the difference?
>>430648
>Nemo dat quod non habet
Basically the same thing, but applying to property, and not powers or titles.
If I steal your dog and sell it, the sale contract is not valid, as it was not my dog to give. Although it can get a bit more complex when faced with the rights of a purchaser in good faith
>>430090
Muh special rulebook!
