Is common or civil law better?
>>80027875
why is flipland gone?
>>80027942
the nutshack
>>80027875
Us apparently as we exist on some ethereal fey realm.
>new zealand not on the map
every fucking time
>>80028062
I dont get it
>>80027875
Common law is Law. Civil law is just stuff that temporarily sounded like a tryable idea to law school graduates who think they know better than the Constitution or Magna Carta.
Depends on the competency of the courts. When competency is high, common law is better.
>>80028136
Cuz this is a forecast map for after we nuke u fuckers into the ocean.
>>80028136
stop with this old stale meme
>>80028128
>ethereal fey realm
>country where all fantasy movies are filmed
Well, you're not wrong.
>>80027942
because you have no real law
>>80027875
y arent we on the map tho
>>80027875
Civil law. Common law gives the (((lawyers))) too much power.
>>80027875
Hey fuck you OP you fucking faggot, go drink pint of bleach you stupid virgin fuck.
>>80027875
>U.S. highlighted as common law
That's a laugh. Judges follow common law here if they feel like it, many times they do not, because it is not progressive enough for their tastes.
>>80028128
>>80028136
>>80029022
http://worldmapswithout.nz
Always makes me laugh.
>>80028517
I would say you're wrong but some midgets did mug me for jewelry today.
>>80029233
8.9% makes me laugh.
Civil law, of coursh. No judge can make decisions with legislator's strength. It ends subverting the logic of checks and balances.
>>80029324
It's 9% actually.
>>80028971
English Common Law tradition includes jury nullification.
Civil Law means kritarchy, judges legislating from the bench.
>>80027875
Nope.
>>80029525
>judges legislating from the bench.
But this is peculiar to common law m8. Civil law systems are the only ones based in law supremacy (over any judicial decision).
>>80027875
I'm dumb
what's the difference
>>80028136
>>80032531
fuck off lorde no one cares
>>80031425
Civil Law
>Government makes laws
>Judges enforce the law
>Government has to ridiculous thorough and constantly go back to books to update the law whenever new scenarios arrive
Common Law
>Government makes the law
>Judges interpret the law and make judgement on a case by case basis
>Decisions by Judges in cases establish new rules so the base law doesn't have to be updated
>>80032906
ty ausanon
What is the difference between the two?
>>80029525
>hur dur, what juror #4 has to feel about the case is more pertinent than the actual facts
>>80028350
This. This 100%. Here in the US, when we lost Scalia, things got bleak.
>>80032906
common law is a good way to make specifics of the law out of reach and understanding of the common man, because of case precedents
civil law is a good way to make your government less efficient
>>80027875
A good natural experiment to test this is to look at how successful former British colonies that inherited the common law are compared to former French colonies or colonies of other civil law countries.
The results of that experiment are "Civil Law BTFO by the Common Law"
>>80027875
I still don't understand how Louisiana survives being the only state without common law.
common
>>80029347
Common law is the ultimate check and balance of state control.
The only downside is that if common law courts are overwhelmed by cases due to shitty/overzealous policing and bad lawmaking, it is much harder for justice to be served because it becomes expensive, time-consuming and exhausting.
I truly believe Australia has the finest, most effective and most enviable common law system in the world. I trust the common law and courts to protect my liberty before I would trust parliament and the police.
Civil law
With common law you get meme lawsuits such as Stella Liebeck's, or Hillary Clinton not getting indicted because there is "no precedence"
>>80028350
I agree but would add on top of that government legislation coupled with lobbying makes it just as tiresome. Stop legislating and let the courts figure things out organically in my opinion. Legislation if used should have sunset provisions so they expire and don't create a domino like effect we have now.
>>80033072
Civil law attempts to create a static system where all possible lawsuits would fall somewhere within the civil code. Imagine a fuckhuge law book; the belief is that you legislate for all possible transgressions of the law so when someone breaks the law, it is a matter of finding the appropriate transgression under the civil code and charging them with it.
The common law is based on the decisions and rulings of judges all the way back to the 16th/17th centuries. It relies on a system of precedent, whereby rulings and legal principles which have developed in earlier cases are applied to newer ones in an attempt to maintain consistency in administering justice.
Unlike what >>80040338 suggests, the common law is able to deal with novel and unprecedented cases by applying broader principles of justice from a wide variety of cases, research, and decisions, sometimes even from abroad. In fact, judges have a responsibility to deal with new cases justly and appropriately so that it can become another part of a coherent and effective system of law.
>>80027875
How does Quebec do it?
>>80040882
Judges should be enforcing the law, not cheating it. And because your law system is based on precedents, it's all about who can afford the most expensive law firm
>>80041433
*creating
>>80041433
Lawmakers sitting in their office aren't the ones dealing with criminals and lawbreakers day in, day out; it is one thing to draft the law, but another completely to apply it in its thousand iterations for every conceivable circumstance. The job of a judge is not to create law - their job is to interpret and apply it.
You are getting mixed up. Precedent does not go against the law. It shows how it should be applied to individual cases. Parliament says that to kill a man is murder and to do it accidentally is mandlaughter. But surely you can understand there's a million scenarios between the two; parliament cannot possibly legislate for them all. This is where judge-made law is applied.
>>80041433
And in regards to your comment about expense, this is an important aspect of the common law system which is under a lot of scrutiny. The more time and resources a party has, the more likely that the result will be in their favour. Despite this, there have been a million and one lawsuits where the common law has been applied with careful deliberation to administer justice to the poorer party in the face of an adversary with almost limitless resources. Cases against the crown and large corporations are heard every day with favourable results for the poorer party. You are right that it is a serious issue, but it is not an insurmountable one.
it is by no means a perfect system. Areas of law regarding procedural fairness attempt to address these issues. But the strength and integrity of the common law system had been proven for centuries.
>>80040882
>The common law is based on the decisions and rulings of judges
wrong, it's based on the ruling of JURIES!!!
>>80040882
I don't know about other civil law countries but over here jurisdiction is also a valuable source of law. The jurisdiction by the Constitutional Court, the Court of Cassation and the State Council have a lot of authority
>>80040338
>"no precedent"
Its pretty easy to create that though if required, British courts can look at Commonwealth cases, or at a stretch American cases where the law is similar to help inform their decision.
