Common Law versus Civil Law

Common Law and Civil Law are two different legal systems with distinct origins and features. 

Common Law is a legal system primarily based on court decisions and judicial precedent rather than codified law. It emphasizes the importance of case law and relies on a hierarchy of courts to interpret and apply the law. Common Law systems originated in England and were later adopted by countries that were once part of the British Empire, including the United States, Canada, Australia, and several others.


In contrast, Civil Law is a legal system based on a codified set of laws that are created and updated by legislators. The legal rules and principles are primarily found in a comprehensive written legal code, which forms the basis for judicial decision-making. Civil Law systems originated in ancient Rome and have subsequently been adopted by many countries across the globe, including most of Europe, Latin America, and parts of Africa and Asia.


One major difference between Common Law and Civil Law is the role played by case law. In Common Law systems, previous court decisions, or precedents, have a significant influence on current and future cases, as these decisions establish legal principles that must be followed by lower courts. This principle of stare decisis promotes consistency and predictability in the law. Civil Law systems, on the other hand, prioritize legal codes and statutes, with judges having less discretion to create or change law through their decisions. While precedents still exist in Civil Law systems, they are less binding and influential compared to Common Law.


Another distinction lies in the role of judges. In Common Law systems, judges play an active role in interpreting and applying the law, often shaping legal principles through their decisions. In Civil Law systems, judges are primarily tasked with applying the law as written, focusing less on interpretation and more on applying the code to the specific case at hand.


Furthermore, the method of legal reasoning differs between the two systems. In Common Law, judges use a process known as "adversarial" reasoning, where two opposing parties present their arguments before a neutral judge who acts as an impartial arbiter. In Civil Law, however, judges utilize "inquisitorial" reasoning, where they actively investigate the facts, gather evidence and information, and question the parties involved, with the goal of finding the truth and rendering a just decision.


Overall, while both Common Law and Civil Law systems exist to administer justice and resolve legal disputes, they differ in their sources of law, the reliance on case law versus codified law, the role of judges, and the process of legal reasoning.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why you get Sexual Harassment Training: The Stupid Supreme "Court" ruling Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998)

 The so-called Supreme "Court" of the United States created an entire industry of consultants and lawyers specializing in Sexual Harassment "law" because there is no real law.  They kept things undefined and subjective for the purpose of lining the pockets of scam artists and dishonest attorneys looking for cash in on the tons of money available from stupid corporate leaders scared to death of "getting sued." Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998) is a significant Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of employer liability in cases of sexual harassment. The case involved a female lifeguard, Beth Ann Faragher, who alleged that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and supervisor harassment by two of her male supervisors. The court examined whether the City of Boca Raton could be held vicariously liable for the supervisors' actions. The key question was whether the supervisors' conduct fell within the scope of their employment, ma...
Read more

Stare Decisis: The Importance of Precedent in Common Law Systems

Introduction: Stare decisis, which translates to "to stand by things decided," is a principle that forms the foundation of the common law legal system. It ensures predictability, consistency, and fairness in judicial decision-making. This report aims to explore the concept of stare decisis and emphasize its importance in common law systems. The Principle of Stare Decisis: Stare decisis dictates that lower courts must follow the legal reasoning and rulings made by higher courts in similar cases. The principle holds that precedent should be binding and authoritative in subsequent cases with similar facts or issues. This creates a cascading effect that establishes a body of legal principles and ensures stability in the interpretation and application of the law. Binding and Persuasive Precedents: In common law systems, courts are hierarchically organized, with higher courts having the authority to set precedents that lower courts are bound to follow. These binding preceden...
Read more