Anglos will unironically defend the jury system.
>>867526
The defence successfully proved some evidence was planted. In accordance with the conception of reasonable doubt the jury made the right decision.
Trial by a jury of your peers is in the magna Carta
>>867537
Wrong thread? What do police have to do with the jury system? That post was retarded and unnecessary.
Who /civil law/ here?
Common law scum >>>/out/
>>867636
infidel shit
/sharia law/ best law
Directly from God
>>867537
This is a terrible post.
>>>/pol/
>>>/leftypol/
>>867649
Hello Nigel
>>867636
>civil law
Muh special rulebook!
>>867636
>Civil law
Meme legal system desu
>>867526
Juries take the potential systemic bias out of a verdict
>>867526
Guess where OJ is today?
>>868333
Different crime and his robbery trial was judge only
>>868315
>[citation needed]
Also you're ignoring the fact that they put a massive incompetence bias back in.
>>868417
>Also you're ignoring the fact that they put a massive incompetence bias back in.
Citation needed
The purpose of the jury as defined in the magna Carta is to prevent the state from making arbitrary judgements
It's a method to limit the power of the state
>>868479
>Citation needed
I asked first. You start.
Also the point of having a jury is against tyranny. It's not in any way supposed to help justice beyond that. And with the complexity of modern law, and the ease with which the average man can be swayed by a skilled orator, it's downright unfair to expect the average Joe to make a correct and unbiased judgement. The truth of this is so self evident that even jury countries avoid employing the system in most cases.
>>868514
Not him, but that's only because so few cases go to a full trial in the first place, which is true in both jury and non-jury judicial systems.
When you do get to full trials, you still get quite a few jury ones, for both civil and criminal cases, at least in the U.S.
>>868371
And had nothing to do with the murders, wink wink.
>>868532
It was armed robbery
That's a violent crime, his sentence was consistent and appropriate
>>868514
>The truth of this is so self evident that even jury countries avoid employing the system in most cases.
Civil codetard detected
The accused elects to be tried by jury or judge in all cases except for murder in which it's always trial by jury. There's so systemic avoidance of juries, it depends on what the accused wants
Rabbinic Law is best goy, but seriously what does /his/ think of religious law?
>>869471
Missing cannon law
Viking law is the best law ie. Common Law
>>869547
>muuh nonexistent juridical system that can be exploited for the convenience of corporate interests
You're literally completely clueless of common law. Not codifying every civil grievance doesn't mean the law isn't there. Its in the case law, hence common law.
>>869549
>cannon law
But making fun of typos aside, does any country actually follow canon law?
>>869561
That's what I meant, law enforced with cannons
>>869391
Oh, I agree. wink wink
Such a violent armed robbery. wink wink
Such a well deserved sentence. wink wink
>>869586
>Such a violent armed robbery.
retard
Robbery with a gun is by definition a violent crime. Look up other sentences for armed robberies and you'll find his is proportionate.
>>867636
This, I can't wrap my head around Common law but I'm specialized in labour law yet aren't a lawyer so I've been taught absolutely nothing about common law.
>>870027
Are you in an anglo country?
basically, instead of government passing legislation for civil law, judges make precedents which become law. So if there was a conflict between 2 people over a contract, however the judge ruled in that case becomes the law to resolve similar conflicts.
>Common law
>Civil law
What's the difference? Common law has judges and juries to decide cases, whereas Civil basically has a proscribed punishment for an individual crime already written down that must be followed?
>>870297
common law
civil code*
people are mistaking civil law and civil code here
>>870297
>Common law has judges and juries to decide cases
This, and judgement and rulings can set precedents, which is basically like setting a new law.
As a court reporter, I can confirm that juries are really, really, really stupid.
>>869471
>tfw tiny state surrounded by common law scum
Disgusting 2bh
Who /lawschool/ here?
2L at UBC here.
Most areas of law don't seem very interesting to me in the slightest so I think I'm just going to go into Family Law and be entertained with the drama of people's lives like some shitty Shakespeare character.
>>870530
eyyy my fwb is a court reporter and she's let me listen to some recorded stuff from trials
>>870538
what was your LSAT score?
>letting government officials decide if the government is right in wanting to put you in prison
Literally serfs in denial.
>>870538
>going to law school with no endgame in mind
You're either rich or crazy
>>870545
They still pass legislation, and judges determine sentencing
>>870569
>letting the government imprison you without any input whatsoever from people who aren't government employees
>giving an incestuous clique of bootlickers and machine politicians absolute power over life and liberty
You're literally gutting one of the single most effective mechanisms of Western democracy.
>>867772
>common law
Muh judges!
I'd rather have a legal system with a clear and concise set of rules than anyone can easily read and understand, even if it's not as adaptable, than have an arcane blending of vague statutes and "precedent" stretching back centuries that can vary from state to state and is so complex that even most lawyers don't fully understand it.
>>867526
B-b-but the glove doesn't fit!
>>870541
My LSAT score was 173. I considered going to an American school after getting it back but it didn't make any sense financially.
>>870549
Eh, tuition is only ~$10k/year here at UBC. It's one of the best law schools in my country and has some of the lowest tuition and I love the city so it's not that big of a deal.
Not ultra rich but I'll be fine. The job market isn't very rough here.
I really don't understand why you americans look with so much disdain towards the common law, Your own system is not much different,. As anyone with even minor knowledge of the legal system will tell you your constitution ammounts to jack shit on the grand scheme. If you still doubt me, just look at the droves of rednecks pleading the second ammendment as justification to own enough assault rifles to conquer hawaii.
>>870658
America is a common law system in 49 states.
Louisiana is civil law.
>>870658
Uh, what? America uses a common law system. It's not "not much different", it is quite literally common law. Why do you think supreme court decisions are such huge fucking deals?
>>870539
Isn't that a federal crime?
>>870538
Please don't. Family law eats you alive from the inside out.
Juries allow for Jury Nullification.
Where the jury knows the defendant is guilty. Yet they rule Not Guilty because they don't think the Defendant should be punished.
>>871058
Not him, but I do family law myself. It's really no worse than a lot of other fields. I like it better than when I did criminal defense.
>>871072
Glad to hear that. Are you in North America?
What are the hours and the money like for you, if you don't mind me asking?
I can't imagine myself enjoying criminal at all and the corporate biglaw lifestyle just seems to be an awful one.
>>871099
I'm in the USA, and I run my own one man firm, so my position might not be representative for what you're looking at.
But my hours are reasonable, rarely more than 50 a week, and I often do stuff on weekends. Money's decent but not great, but I'm still building my business, so I've made more in the past 2 months than in the 6 before that; I'm still not entirely sure where it'll start to even out.
>>871114
Sounds like you're on track for a pretty comfy life, desu. You must be just a few years in?
That's about the sort of practice I hope to see myself end up in eventually. Being my own boss, having autonomy, bringing in some cash and not overworking myself.
What's been the best part about jumping from criminal to family law?
>>871122
About 9 months into it, actually. I did criminal defense immediately after leaving law school, but I couldn't keep doing it. Putting guilty people back on the streets quite a bad taste in my mouth.
>What's been the best part about jumping from criminal to family law?
2 major points, not sure which is better.
Exhibit A: I no longer get calls at three in the morning because they picked up a client and he's demanding to see me.
Exhibit B: Not having to listen to the (tapped) prison calls. I can read through documents quickly, but there's really no way to accelerate your way through hours of conversation from a prison phone. Plus, I hear a lot of things I really, really didn't want to know. One of my biggest criminal cases involved a 300+ pound man phone sexing his girlfriend on the prison line, and it was very, very hard to look him in the eyes after hearing that.
https://youtu.be/Ije_kg0kY_A
The justice system is a flawed concept built on revenge. When people deserve it, true judgement will find them. The word legality philosophically represents a defiance against the natural law of the world or more literally, "against god's law."
>>870616
I'd rather not follow some code voted on by inept politicians decide how to resolve a civil dispute between me and my neighbour because I tripped over his garden gnomes. In that case a judge would look to see what the common law has to say about reasonably securing one's property as to not cause harm
>>870733
I guess so, she's under oath
Its not like I tell people I know
Do civil code countries have subpoena?
>>873100
Pretty sure that's an Anglo thing
There's no law here
>>869567
>law enforced with cannons
Fucking anglos
>>874863
Canon law is religious law
Do civil law countries have the same amount of those insane 'sovereign citizen' people? You know, the people we seem to have in every common law country who try to make legal arguments based on the magna carta, admiralty law, or who try to argue their citizenship is a contract based on their birth certificate?
>>870658
>If you still doubt me, just look at the droves of rednecks pleading the second ammendment as justification to own enough assault rifles to conquer hawaii.
buttblasted yuropoor detected
Reminder that the 2nd Amendment has been affirmed as an individual right multiple times by SCOTUS (including on their ruling this past Monday). The only people twisting the constitution are the ones claiming it only applies to muskets and militias.
>>877039
Civil Code*
Civil law is something different. And while I don't know the answer to your question, I almost can't imagine the phenomenon not being present in some form. Sovereign citizen types are born out of noncomprehension of the legal system and resorting to a kind of shamanism to control this mysterious, powerful entity. There have to be legally ignorant people susceptible to that kind of thinking over as large an area and population base as "All of Europe".
>>877128
Not him, but I've always thought the far more interesting anti-gun argument is to take a crack at the Incorporation Doctrine vis a vis the 2nd amendment. Especially since the people who tend to be the most pro-gun rights also tend towards original intent as the guiding principle for constitutional law analysis.
>>877196
>Incorporation Doctrine
Not sure what you mean by that - you talking about applying the 2nd Amendment to the states as well?
tell me /his/ what is a good book on Rhodesia and or the Bush War? I don't want le ebin /pol/ smith did nothing wrong book, but I also don't want some Mugabe propoganda
>>877196
Apologies, but at least in Australia the terms 'civil code' and 'civil law' countries are somewhat interchangeable - still my bad, civil code is the more common term.
I agree with what you say, but the common law tradition does seem to give a lot more room to people who want to construct semi-legalistic sounding pseudo-law. I've always found these people fascinating - they have the capacity to learn and understanding a fair complex series of legal fictions, so while insane, they're not necessarily entirely stupid. But for some reason they are capable of entirely ignoring the fact that none of their claims ever succeed in court - and at least a few of them base their beliefs on rejecting statute and embracing the common law, which makes their inability to comprehend precedent amazing.
>>877238
fuck meant to post this just in /his/, forgot I was in this thread
>>877223
Essentially, yes. As originally formed, none of the Bill of Rights attached to state level governance; if you wanted said rights of things like arms bearing, free speech, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, etc. protected, it needed to be in the constitution of the state you lived in.
Starting in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court has been "Incorporating" Bill of Rights protections to state level laws, and striking down things where necessary. It's not just the 2nd amendment, pretty much all of them besides the one about being free from having troops quartered in your home have some case dealing with how they're now applicable to the states as well.
And Incorporation is in, and will almost certainly remain in forever. What I'm more thinking about as a thought experiment is what the pro-gun militia types would be saying if Incorporation got overturned; because at least in my experience the most rabid pro-gun sorts are also against the legal reasoning that led to the doctrine in the first place.
>>877240
In my VERY limited experience, (all of one case) they don't really have much of a capacity to learn and understand what they're spouting. The guy I had the misfortune of dealing with was really only capable of parroting stuff, and did not understand at all what he was even referring to. He got mad at me when I tried to inform him that really, the Articles of Confederation aren't something any court will care about if you cite to it.
>>877258
Are you a lawyer? And if so, I assume you practise in the US?
I've always found the theories based on contract the most amusing. If the government truly has deluded us all into becoming unaware of the contractual nature of our relationship with the government (99% of the population), then why do we, not being privy to the same truth as sovereign citizens, continue to accept their authority over us?
It must simply be that a majority of us simply accept that we are a member of society, and subject to the government, by virtue of having been born into that society and by virtue of the governments monopoly over law and enforcement.
If that is the case for 99% of people, why would the government bother keeping up the contract-based sham? Surely they don't have that much respect for sanctity of contract.
Civil Law is for the Civilized Men.
Common Law is for the Common Negro.
>>877284
>Are you a lawyer? And if so, I assume you practise in the US?
Yes to both. Same anon who wrote these posts>>871141
>>871114
I think my favorite one is this assumption that there's a firm dividing line between "Common law" on one hand (Good!) and "Admiralty law" on the other (Bad!). Informing them that there's a body of common admiralty law makes their heads spin.
>>877317
Inform an uninformed person who's only awareness of the American profession comes from television, a very limited number of cases referenced by our courts when no other Commonwealth ones were available, and youtube. Is an American courtroom (at least in the lower courts) as theatrical as its made out to be?
Are lawyers like this one common, or would this sort of commercial be as cringeworthy over there as it is here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr2gdPY-88w
>>877286
>Civil Law
Common law countries have civil law you tard
We just don't codify our laws
>>877238
Sources at the bottom
>>877420
Civil Law is an interchangeable term for Civil Code man, calm down.
>>877353
Closest thing I've ever gotten was again in law school, with the clinic, doing crim defense. And we got an insultingly bad preliminary offer from the DA's office, and they'd be sending someone down to discuss it with the real attorney in person. He told us interns to go home and change into as ratty clothes as we had to show he wasn't taking this seriously.
There are a few stories floating around, including one where one of my other professors allegedly pulled a gun on a man stalking his client, but nothing more than the level of barroom anecdotes. My own practice is rather dull and mechanical, even when I was doing prison calls.
And oh god yes, that video made me shudder.
>>877353
Lawyers like that are rather unique; most lawyers are proofreaders, not magicians.
>>877245
ah I see - applying the states' rights issue to gun control. The problem there is that you've got a constitutional amendment that clearly states that the Bill of Rights apply to all states (14th Amendment). That means there's a fine line the states need to follow when making their gun control laws.
While they do have more leeway to make laws, as they don't need most of the country to agree, they run the risk of fucking up enough to get a SCOTUS precedent that severely limits their legislative rights.
Granted, while I'm very, very pro-gun, I do support the right of states to make their own local level laws. I disagree with the vast majority of those passed, but I'd rather they just fuck themselves than try to force the entire country to accept their pants-on-head retarded ideas.
>>877245
My right to keep and bear arms has been infringed. Badly.
>>877507
>The problem there is that you've got a constitutional amendment that clearly states that the Bill of Rights apply to all states (14th Amendment).
The problem with that is that you don't see it reflected in caselaw, especially SCOTUS level caselaw, until much, much later.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html
Cruikshank, above, was the go-to case on the matter for quite literally decades, and it said the complete opposite, because it formulated most of the Bill of Rights as limitations on federal government power, not as rights in and of themselves that must be upheld. It's only case by case and right by right that you got what we have today, and the process is usually considered to have started with Gitlow v New York, and I believe that was in the 20s.
So it's really less of a states rights directly and more of a judicial overreach sort of argument, but it comes to the same place.
>>877542
Oh neat I never realized that.
Applying the bill of rights to all states is probably for the best, however, and you'd be hard pressed to overturn it. Sure, it'd open up the door for anti-gun states to pretty much ban all guns, but at the same time it'd allow other states to do their own terrible things.
It'd be interesting to see anti-gun groups arguing from that viewpoint, but I don't think it'd really be all that realistic. Not only does the anti-gun side tend to have a more authoritarian leaning that goes pretty far against the concept of states' rights, but it's pretty much entirely based on now-defunct precedents. It's even less meaningful than the argument of "well they only had muskets back then" - it's meaningless when multiple recent cases say otherwise. It'd be like trying to use the Dredd Scott case in a modern courtroom.
>>867660
B T F O
T P
F
O P
We all know anglos actually suck fat sharia cock.
>>877617
Oh yeah, I realize that incorporation is here to stay, and it's never, ever being overturned in anything resembling a reasonable projection of current trends.
My little thought experiment on these lines is often because I see these militia movements as attempting to justify themselves by appealing to what the founding fathers would have wanted, which is ironic because they never thought of the Bill of Rights applying to state governments, and I somehow think that these folks would be quite, quite upset if whichever state they lived in (but not the federal government) got a clear go-ahead to take their guns.
>>877433
>Civil Law is an interchangeable term for Civil Code man,
no it's not. Civil law is the law which resides over people's interactions with each other and deals mostly with liability and compensation.
Civil code is just a special rule book which GOVERNS civil law, whereas common law used precedents to govern civil law.
>>867636
>tfw this won't even be a fight in China when 80% of higher educated people here suck anything un-Chinese including common law, sinophobism, analytic philosophy, conservatism, "Mongolian laiser-faireism",Ayn Rand and anything right-leaning
I'm a third year in NZ. Probably gonna go into employment or criminal when I finish (and then never get hired because I had to transfer to a shit tier uni)
>>870658
The U.S is common law, retard.
>>877258
>>In my VERY limited experience, (all of one case) they don't really have much of a capacity to learn and understand what they're spouting.
you do understand that nobody understand the laws because the few people -- who choose to believe in a legal society such as what they invented today -- do not impose the teaching of the law through their mandatory education ?
If few people who believe in muh republics cared, they would use their means to spout out pupils as good citizens having faith in whatever society that the few people wish to conserve through their fantasy of educating the pleb.
Instead, today, their education spouts out teenagers who do not care about the institutions (and the morality which is concreted through them) so that these few people still need their policemen, their judges and their prison guards for the pleb who will not behave,sooner or later, as these few people would like the pleb to behave.
In fact, the liberals and libertarians admit, more or less, that the goal of their national education is to spout out people ready to work.
Today, the sole requirement demanded by the liberals and the libertarians is the payment of the taxes with, in case of refusal, some menaces of very displeasing consequences.
The problem of the liberals and libertarians who do not hesitate to impose their legal fantasies is that they only have stick to convert people to their doctrine. Today, there is no reward for embracing their doctrine, there is not even an explicit reward for paying their taxes. The liberals and libertarians would like to make the pleb feel good about itself when they pay their taxes, in contributing to the common good and other occidental humanist fantasy, but even this fails.
>>882002
Today, the average guy is
-a citizen, where is has no power in liberal societies, good at nothing but satisfying the demand of paying taxes
-an employee, where he knows that he is at best a average cog, especially if has no extended network (which is always mediocre if he is not born in a good family)
-a consumer, where he find a bit of potency through the fantasy of the selection of the companies whereto he subscribes. This feeds his hedonism. Today companies have understand that in liberal societies, they better pass as a moral agent, in supporting explicitly whatever they like in the bag of the fantasies of the human rights.
Do not blame people for not understanding the cogs of a doctrine explicitly created to render impotent the pleb outside of disposable consumption.
I wish we had a jury system and that juries could also decide the sentence. Our judges are corrupt as fuck, take decades to solve sple cases, and let criminals go with very short sentences
If you've ever watched 12 angry men, you'll realize why the jury system is so shit.
>>882066
How? That movie showed why a jury is good and why a unanimous verdict is necessary
>>882015
Country?
>>867526
Burger reporting in.
I know in the UK, they have a difference between "Barristers" and "Solicitors", and that apparently, over here we've dissolved the distinction. What exactly is the difference between the two?
>>867526
Memes aside, did OJ actually, really do it?
>>885225
Very unlikely.
>>885225
There's cops planted so much evidence we'll never know
>>884056
In Canada we use it too but we also don't use it
Barrister is a lawyer who specialises in litigating and representing in court
Whereas a solicitor would be like an estates lawyer, or real estate lawyer
Prepare legal documents things like that
>>885225
Niggers don't rage and cut peoples heads off!
Niggers don't flee from the cops!
Niggers never lie!
Niggers don't leave their DNA at the crime scene, their car, and at home!
>>885769
>Niggers don't leave their DNA at the crime scene, their car, and at home!
Planted evidence
OJs blood at the crime scene had a chemical preservative in it used in forensic labs
>>885785
>chemical preservative in it used in forensic labs
Same with the blood in the Bronco
>>870008
I think he's implying the charges were trumped up like the legal system doesn't have actual people with money to fuck over.
>>885807
I think he was treated fairly desu
The problem isn't the jurors, it's that trials have become a game and lawyers will try all sorts of shady tricks to win.
I was on a jury for a straight forward murder case. Because of the defence's trickery a one week case was dragged out to 5. He managed to sew the seed of doubt into two jurors. We talked them out of it and got the unanimous decision but it could easily have gone the other way and a murderer would have walked free.
The defence happened to be a pretty shitty lawyer. If he was any good he could have got the jury doubting with his cheeky tricks.
This is why all these millionaires get away with shit. Their top dollar lawyers are masters of the dark arts.
>>870616
No legal rules exist from hundreds of years ago. If they exist today, it is because more recent precedents have been set which direct ancient decisions still have sway. Generally, at least in English Law, there will be a discussion which will allow the judge to decide between many different judicial options. Whilst this can cause confusion, it does mean that the most sensible idea of what the law is prevails. We don't accept something as legally binding simply because someone 20 years ago worded a statute wrong.
>>878984
Civil law has two senses. Stop being dense.
>>886877
look! A real retard!
>>886877
You're being tense.The difference between common law and civil code is civil law is codified whereas civil law in common law systems is not.
Both systems have civil law.
>>886965
Dense
>>886943
>>886965
As I said, "civil law" has two senses. One is the law which governs the relations between private individuals (its antonym being "public law"); the other being law effected through a stringent set of codes (its antonym being "common law"). As I previously stated, this distinction might not exist in your jurisdiction but it does in English Law.
Consult your Oxford English Dictionary. They might not have taught you this when you were doing your associate's in criminal justice, but you're wrong nevertheless.
>>888029
No, you're still fucking wrong. And if you can't see that, commit suicide.
Civil law is not synonymous with civil code in a common law system.
>>877425
>>867543
you know he fucking did it.
>>888700
You just got straight up rekt, you stupid fuck. You don't even have the self-respect to admit it.
What are your credentials anyway, idiot? Was I right with the associate's comment?
>>889757
CIVIL CODE AND CIVIL LAW ARE NOT SYNONYMOUS YOU FUCKING RETARD
>>889757
CIVIL CODE IS CODIFIED CIVIL LAW
THE TWO ARENT INTERCHANGEABLE YOU FUCKING MORON
>>871207
Then why is bible so full of laws and punishments for them?
Please guys, you are jurists, not politicians. Name-calling never helped any case
Here's how it is:
>in civil law systems, civil law is ruled both by the civil code, and by case law whenever the civil code isn't precise enough
>there can be civil law systems, such as the french one, where some fields of law, such as public law, aren't codified, and are built nearly solely on case law, with some legal influence
>criminal law is, in civil law systems, the most codified field of law, where case law has the less influence compared to legal influence
>>886753
Like how, what did he tell?
>>884056
Barristers are basically the lawyers who appear in court. They also write legal opinions, and there are actually some barristers whose practice consists entirely of writing opinions and they never really go to court. But for the most part, they're associated with appearing in court, particularly superior courts.
Solicitors are the lawyers who do everything else. So matters that aren't going to court, like if you need a contract drafted, are handled by solicitors. If you have a dispute, you also go to a solicitor, who will give you advice and represent you in discussions and negotiations with the other side's solicitors. If that dispute gets to the stage where it looks like it will actually go to trial, then your solicitor will get a barrister invovled. The solicitor will continue to work with you, and will give your instructions to the barrister who will do the actual courtroom stuff.
Traditionally barristers are only briefed by solicitors (not by the client directly) and they are required to take on any case given to them if they are available and it's their area of practice. Judges are almost always former barristers.
Where I live, in South Australia, all lawyers are permitted to practise as both barristers and solicitors. But most still tend to work as one or the other, and we still have an independent bar made up of lawyers who have committed to work exclusively as barristers.
>>890374
>Where I live, in South Australia, all lawyers are permitted to practise as both barristers and solicitors
it's like this in most of Canada too, save Quebec I think
>>890301
you're going to trigger my nerd rage
bump for no fighting
>>890374
Massive over-simplification.
>be european
>commit serious crime
>get 5 years max
Feels good man.
>>893387
Given where we are, and the fact that anyone looking for more detailed information could obviously google it, I think it's a pretty reasonable level of simplification.
>>893618
Europe has no rule of law and let terrorists out of jail because they're afraid of being racist
>>893714
Would you not saying our deciding to treat people as if they have basic human rights, enforced by the courts, is a sign that the rule of law in Europe is well and good?
>>895918
Europe doesnt have entrenched rights though. Governments have final say. Maybe France has entrenched rights actually
>>895942
The European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union beg to differ.
>>896007
that's not ENTRENCHED. That's not even sovereign legislation. It's just a guideline for European countries to follow
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrenched_clause
>>896165
Firstly, let's form the setting of this debate. You made the claim that France has entrenched rights -- implying that no other European country has entrenched rights. France doesn't have fucking entrenched rights at all! And in fact Germany has the most stringent human rights constitution of any country! Both your points were wrong. I therefore question your knowledge of EU human rights law.
>not even sovereign legislation
Costa v ENEL. "It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question."
This is in reference to the supremacy of European Union law on matters where competence has been transferred to the Union. In this case, Italian law which was contrary to Union law was said to be void and Union law was said to operate. (See Van Gend en Loos where it was help private citizens could rely on Union law notwithstanding its lack of implementation by Member States.)
Note, however, that ECHR -- which prohibits certain actions by signatories -- does not come under the purview of Union law. It is a separate legal entity. Though it is not a mere guideline; signatories who contravene Convention rights can be fined for non-compliance and the "form" of the law is refined and promulgated by the European Court of Human Rights. Domestic courts do not interpret the Convention; it is not for them to do that. There is a key difference as regards ECHR and Union law in that ECHR is not supreme or directly effective. However, non-compliance would be a highly risky thing to do and to ignore the jurisprudence of ECtHR (and associated fines) would require Member States to disassociate themselves from the Council of Europe and by extension the European Union.
>>896245
Europeans don't have rights, quit fooling yourself. The EU rights are just guidelines, they're not law.
>>896271
You're wrong, my friend.
>>896699
As an English lawyer, I can tell you it is wrong. The demarcation does not exist in English law at all. Further, solicitors most certainly do advocate in courts -- just not at the senior courts. However, in England, advocacy certification can be acquired by solicitors to gain higher rights of audience comparable to that of barristers. There is also direct access available for barristers, so there is no need for an intermediary solicitor to instruct.
>>896732
>The demarcation does not exist in English law at all
>in England, advocacy certification can be acquired by solicitors to gain higher rights of audience comparable to that of barristers
Uh, pick one?
Anyway, I don't really see what you're saying was 'plain wrong'. The post said:
>for the most part [barristers are] associated with appearing in courts, especially superior courts
That's true. The fact that solicitors can also advocate in courts (with or without additional certification) doesn't contradict that.
>Traditionally barristers are only briefed by solicitors
Again, completely true. The inclusion of the term 'traditionally' obviously contemplates modern deviations from that practice.
If someone is asking about the differences between barristers and solicitors, the points addressed by that post are the points you would expect to be covered. Maybe there should have been some sort of disclaimer expressly stating that the details vary between jurisdictions, but I think it's probably obvious to most readers.
>>896793
The demarcation (the instructors vs the instructed) does not exist. Firstly, there are means to overcome this model at the higher courts. Secondly, it does not exist at the lower courts.
>If that dispute gets to the stage where it looks like it will actually go to trial, then your solicitor will get a barrister invovled. The solicitor will continue to work with you, and will give your instructions to the barrister who will do the actual courtroom stuff.
This is clearly wrong and this came before your "traditionally" qualifier.
>Traditionally barristers are only briefed by solicitors
>The inclusion of the term 'traditionally' obviously contemplates modern deviations from that practice.
I would disagree. The verb "are" implies a continuation of that tradition. The adverb implies that the practice (which continues to this day) is founded in tradition. This impression is incorrect.
>>for the most part [barristers are] associated with appearing in courts, especially superior courts
>That's true. The fact that solicitors can also advocate in courts (with or without additional certification) doesn't contradict that.
You were talking about the description of barristers. The post implies, rightly, that barristers tend to advocate at the higher courts. It makes no mention of the practice of solicitors. Some barristers might practice in lower courts depending on their specialism. The implication ("barristers stick to higher courts") says nothing about solicitors.
>>889420
His son did it.
>>896836
>The demarcation (the instructors vs the instructed) does not exist. Firstly, there are means to overcome this model at the higher courts. Secondly, it does not exist at the lower courts.
The fact that the model involving a demarcation between barristers and solicitors needs to be 'overcome' obviously shows that it does exist.
>This is clearly wrong and this came before your "traditionally" qualifier.
It is what would actually happen in fact in most cases. It might not be legally required to happen in all cases. But if we're trying to illustrate the difference between barristers and solicitors, probably best to assume a case in which both are involved, no?
>The verb "are" implies a continuation of that tradition. The adverb implies that the practice (which continues to this day) is founded in tradition. This impression is incorrect.
Actually even if you read it like that, it's still absolutely correct. In order to make it incorrect, you have to read into it that barristers are 'exclusively' briefed by solicitors, which is not in the original. It is a fact that barristers are briefed by solicitors (albeit not exclusively), and when done so this is 'traditional'.
I think you're stretching pretty far to find a way to be misled by a sentence which is not really misleading.
>The implication ("barristers stick to higher courts")
That absolutely is not implied by the phrase 'especially superior courts'. 'Especially' does not mean 'exclusively'.
Barristers are 'especially' associated with higher courts because solicitors are less likely to appear in them.
>>896883
If solicitors wish to advocate at the more senior courts, they need advocacy certification in order to overcome that traditional block. But a) the higher courts do not comprise the entire judicial system and b) the tale told ("then your solicitor will get a barrister involved") is not accurate even at the higher courts because there is no need for a barrister to be instructed. The impression you created was a false one.
>verb "are"
You did not qualify your statement at all. "Traditionally barristers are only briefed by solicitors." How on earth are people to infer that you did not mean exclusively, if you make no mention of qualifiers and you in fact create an impression of absolutes? Further, your point about "traditional" is simply silly. It was clear what you meant in that post and it is clear that what you mean was wrong and created the incorrect impression.
>"barristers stick to higher courts"
That was said in parentheses to serve as a signpost; it was not a significant explanation of the Bar, clearly.
And your reply has entirely missed the point of that part of my previous post. Namely, your description of barristers made no mention of solicitors, explicitly or implicitly, and therefore it was irrelevant to your concluding that "The fact that solicitors can also advocate in courts (with or without additional certification) doesn't contradict that [barristers are especially associated with superior courts]."
>>896901
I feel like you shouldn't be commenting and should just pipe down.
>>896952
>the tale told ("then your solicitor will get a barrister involved") is not accurate even at the higher courts because there is no need for a barrister to be instructed
But it absolutely does happen, very frequently.
There's no law that says you need to get a lawyer who specialises in criminal law to represent the accused in a murder case. But people obviously do. Similarly, even though there may be no legal compulsion to get a barrister to advocate in a superior court, the fact that there are barristers whose work consists entirely of doing that is a pretty good indication that it does happen.
Fundamentally, I think the problem is that you've taken a post which aimed to describe, in broad terms, the differences between barristers and solicitors, and you've interpreted it as being an attempt at a detailed description of the regulation of the legal profession in a specific country. Taken as such, it obviously lacks detail.
But there is no way you could possibly interpret >>890374 that would make it more misleading than the statement 'the demarcation does not exist in English law at all'.
>>867526
I was wishing it was actually a law thread, ut then you secretly made a race thread
fuck youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu
>>867636
1804 best year of my life
>>870027
you have to think of civil law as torah law 2.0
you just have to reach back far enough into the texts and commentators until you find something they guy paying you could use
>>868315
you'll just have a hick off the street bias in stead
not a good trade
>>868514
>average man can be swayed by a skilled orator
That's not how Civil Law works, buddy. That's a battle of intellect. The one with the greatest mastery of the legal system persuades the judge. Or the judge does what he wants, which is fine too. Easier to only bride a judge after all.
>>869471
rabbinic law is basically civil law
law codes are just another relic from the east
fucking justinian
>>896974
>"But it absolutely does happen, very frequently."
The issue is not that it happens. It is that you made it seem as if it always happens this way. For the sake of making a concise and simple explanation of the two professions, it makes sense to simplify but you merely needed to add in the words "inferior" and "superior" courts.
>you've interpreted it as being an attempt at a detailed description of the regulation of the legal profession in a specific country
Well, even if we approach it generally rather than England and Wales specifically, there is a fault in your description. That fault is assuming that the higher courts comprise all the judiciary by ignoring the lower courts and solicitors' engagement with them. I assume that solicitors advocate in your lower courts too? I think most countries operate direct access to barristers also.
I watch the good wife, ask me anything
>>897997
why the fuck would you watch the good wife?
>>898007
to pass time while I eat my breakfast
>>898019
your choice of televisual entertainment is bad, and you should feel bad
>>867526
I don't understand this "we dont codify our laws" anglo meme. Are your laws not in a book? Are they not written?
