![1920px-Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en)[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/gW1cDOs.png "1920px-Map_of_the_Legal_systems_of_the_world_(en)[1].png")
Which do you think is the superior legal system: common law or civil law?
What's the difference.
>>771929
As i understand it, in common law previous rulings are treated as precedents to be followed and in civil law past rulings are seen as being more advisory
how they differ?
Precedent system seems like it allows more bullshit.
>>771939
>previous rulings are treated as precedents to be followed
that's the stupidest thing i've heard in a long time. that's why we have laws in the first place.
>>771967
It allows for the law to properly evolve as unforeseen circumstances appear in cases that make the application of the statute law not make sense, also provides more consistency in the application of the law.
>>771971
Yeah, but inevitably, laws tend to have issues with the implementation, or combination. And without precedent, you have laws being ruled on in an inconsistent fashion. And seeing as law must be understandable and have a predicatable manner of enforcement for them to hold true as reasonable standards of behaviour in a civilised society, precedent must be observed.
Of course, de facto, precedents are overturned with new data or contexts, or appealed to a higher court. And well crafted laws reduce the scope for precedence because there's no real room for tricky interpretation.
>>771971
The laws are not all encompassing. Sometimes situations arise that were not foreseen by the statute law. It does not undermine existing law, it builds on it.
>>771927
The law of Allah.
>>771927
Civil Law to be honest. Only pleb tier shits go Common.
>>772099
>hey wait you can't make that ruling because you ruled previously in the opposite context-
>TOO BAD LMAO I MAKE THE LAWS BITCH
>>772099
>Judge rules in favour of the defendant in a case
> Identical case, different judge rules in favour of the plaintiff
>Both are seen as legitimate because fuck consistency in law
Seems like a bullshit system to me
>>772099
Only non-Anglo untermensch use Civil
>>772140
I'm not a continental idiot with no sense of consistency so yes.
>>772125
That would be grounds for appeal. The Judge isn't supposed to overturn precedent in identical cases. It would be up to the lawyers and the judge to establish that the facts and context of the case didn't fit with the precedent, and thus required a different ruling.
Beyond that, that's a fundamental issue of law in general, whatever system.
Gee OP I don't know, do you prefer a system with rather clear rules, or one where a senile out of touch old man makes up things on the spot depending on how he likes you?*
* this post employs great amounts of hyperbole to nonetheless help illustrate the general point I am trying to make because I can't be arsed being more elaborate.
>>772594
I don't understand, which one are you defending here?
>>772594
Neither has particularly clear rules. The same basic law issues are there.
>>772594
Doesn't work that way.
Cour d'appel -> Cour de cassation
The one which the historical superpowers of the world use.
>>772753
That's vague.
>>772751
How about in a language more than a few million irrelevant people can understand?
>>772865
ουk ελαβον πολιν αλλα γαρ ελπις εφη kαkα
>>771927
I prefer the consistency of common law, but, the precedent system has one terrible flaw: if a judge rules unjustly and the ruling goes unchecked, future judges can rule the same way on precedent. And there is no one to judge the judges because nobody knows how our government works.
t. america
>>772125
Conversely:
> judge rules in favour of the defendant in a case
> completely different case, different judge rules in favour of defendant
> both are seen as legitimate because fuck logic in law
Seems like a bullshit system to me.
>>772109
> any retard judge can set a precedent in law based on personal bias and interests
> m-muh consistency
Given that common law literally controls the world I'd say common law is superior.
>>773553
>Given that progressivists literally control the world I'd say progressivism is superior
lad
>>773598
Put whatever label you want on it. It's running this shit whether you like it or not.
>>771927
Common law is undoubtedly better but it's just not an option for most countries without adopting Anglo-American precedents wholesale.
Common law is much better for the economy. Businesses are much less likely to invest in civil law countries due to less political/legal stability and less safeguards for property ownership.
Civil law counties such as France see much, much less economic growth and capital than most common law countries.
>>771927
system type doesn't really matter since a lot of them can be one thing on paper and greatly different in reality.
Check the democracy index/ economic freedom and see where all the rich countries are
filteries.com/global
>>773510
You don't know what you are talking about
>>773719
>HA YOU'RE WRONG
>fucking bolts
good logic there anon
>>771927
civil law.
the only thing common law has over civil, is consistency.
>>773758
Judges don't use precedents in cases that aren't sufficiently similar to the original case. Your point doesn't make any sense. What else is there to say? Your original post was retarded, you should be able to see that without my help.
lawfag here
it doesn't really matter on the practical side. but if you want my honest opinion, of course fucking civil law is superior.
>>773892
Who decides what's sufficiently similar? The need to make this distinction hobbles the legal system and encourages generalization and ambiguity in court cases. It also encourages the defense to try and bury small but crucial details in hope of derailing the prosecution's argument. Common law makes no sense, face it.
>>773970
>Who decides what's sufficiently similar?
The Lawyers argue on both sides, attempting to convince the judge. Which is a pretty typical situation for any legal situation that isn't a kangaroo court.
>hobbles
The exact opposite. It works adaption into the system, and acts as a check and balance to the government.
>encourages the defense
That's hardly exclusive to common law. Legal cases the world over hinge on small details.
>>771996
>Sometimes situations arise that were not foreseen by the statute law. It does not undermine existing law, it builds on it.
well then the question is why do you want to rule on these new situations.
>>774703
Because a possible crime has de facto been commited? A legal judgement is required. You can't keep everyone locked up until the leglistlature gets off their ass and passes a clarification specifically for your case.
It's an essential measure to cut down on bureaucratic fuckery, and to expidite the process of creating law.
>>773621
>Businesses are much less likely to invest in civil law countries due to less political/legal stability and less safeguards for property ownership.
it is the exact opposite. with civil odes, you see what you will get.
>>774743
But not the ruling the judge will choose this time, because there's no requirement for precedent. Plus legal ambiguities exist in both systems, and a lawyer is needed in both.
