So Yas Forums... Civil or Common law and why?

You can choose to forego a jury here if you want to just let the judge decide

>judges
Those fags are the spine of the corruption system

I don't know the difference

Attached: 7981247921.jpg (350x420, 20.13K)

>tunisia
>sharia law
wtf?????????

that's not true though Judges base their verdicts on existing case law. Most of the shit i learned is that we have the black letter law and above that the case law with exceptions or addendums.

How does that work those 'magistrates' to me it seems really strange that someone with no law background can pass a legal verdict

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_pirates

Attached: 1584416025264.jpg (444x563, 38.38K)

Yeah because Argentina has the most honest lawmakers on Earth

How do you justify the seperation of powers (trias politicas) when your judges can litterally make and """interprete""" laws? Genuinly curious, answer me anglos

i mean judges base their verdicts on the written black letter law AND case law

Civil Law of course. Unelected judges making up laws on the spot that are binding in a common law system is pretty fucked up and kind of totalitarian. There is a division between the legislative and the judiciairy for a reason.

Judges can’t make a law

>Judge-made law – known as common law – is law that has developed from judgments handed down in court. It is most often used to make decisions about areas that are not included in Acts of Parliament. When using common law judges decide cases along the lines of earlier decisions made in similar cases ('precedents').

Fuck that gay shit. Sharia all the way.

As long as it’s constitutional I don’t see any problem with a judge interpreting a law, it allows for a more coherent legal system.

Civil. Imagine having previous judicial decisions as anything more than a hermeneutical tool for the interpretation of the law, as laid down by the elected representatives of the people.

Attached: commonlaw.jpg (735x541, 110.97K)

>one single source that read suspiciously like fanfiction.
I'll take it.

Common law because their judiciary system work better.

Does it now? I don't know about the Brits, but American system is just ridiculous.
With their plee bargains, theatre court, trial by money pile, for profit jails.. Seems deeply disfunctional.

If there's a conflict between judge-made law and statutory law then the latter will always prevail. Judges interpret statutes and also develop doctrines that complement the statutory law in areas where judges have special expertise (for example, what remedies should be handed out)

For smaller criminal cases a panel of volunteer magistrate judges give judgment. It's usually just bored old people with nothing better to do and it's basically a way to save money instead of having a judge who knows what they're doing.

That's weird because that's what I was taught is the main distinction between civil and common law, but I think the difference is that with the latter the decisions of judges are actually legally binding. It doesn't surprise me that judges in civil law would still base their decision on previous case law though.

Mixed Civil-Common purplefag here

I wouldn't trust 'elected representatives of the people' to have complete say over the law and I don't even live a corrupt third-world country

They are, surely, better than unelected ad hoc legislators-judges. In any case, recent decisions produced by our Constitutional Court (idk the equivalent in the UK, if any) have made vertical case law (i. e. coming from the superior courts) legally binding to lower judges, who now must, by general rule, adhere to the rule of law produced by said superior courts.

I think the difference is not that huge anymore tbqh.

Germanic law really shouldn't be classified as such, it was deeply influenced by Napoleonic law

None of what you posted is accurate

Sharia

I don't agree because judges tend to actually be experienced lawyers who know their shit, rather than politicians looking to further their own careers. Obviously judges shouldn't have total autonomy over law-making though, simply because there are certain areas of policy that parliament can evaluate better. This is why you often see judges in the UK refusing to give judgment in certain areas.

In the UK the Supreme Court has more or less become our Constitutional Court due to a series cases resulting from Brexit. But it doesn't surprise me that a system of precedent naturally evolves in the hierarchy of civil law justice systems.

dont understand the difference but
for me
it's brehon law

Attached: brehon_laws.png (595x1137, 113.48K)

Fvck angl*s

Trial by combat

Based

We have all the rights unless specifically stated otherwise. Common law ties in best to a constitution, because higher aims that can not be held in the long term by politicians are upheld. Nanny states develop in common law systems without constitutions and code law systems, because "oh think of the children" laws accumulate a destroy the spirit of any founding ideals of a country.

I've always found that jury shit weird, but are the actual trials like in american tv shows and movies?

>chilean law
WTF?

>Steal a Lama
>Get a short drop and a sudden stop

>back when parliamentary supremacy was real
Common
>today when parliamentary supremacy has been almost completely gutten by our meme constitution and the supreme court
Civil

No, the great majority of the time it's cut-and-dry and consists of a criminal pleading guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence, minor crimes don't involve a jury at all.

German civil law, which is also why China and Japan copy pasted the German BGB. It's the by far most well constructed set of rules ever conceived. You want for laws to be open to interpretation, given how its otherwise impossible to tell what the law maker intended at a later point in time. The issue wtih common law is that societies and cultural values change, but the decisions are limited by precendent from the stone-ages some overpaid office chihuahua (read: a paralegal) found in a dustry box.

There's a reason nobody adopts common law. It's a terrible system, the epitome of unflexibility.

german law
wtf is even anglo law, its not law, a con game

>Commit murder
>Have your life sentence reduced to 2 weeks community service and a £50 fine because you hired a man who has the uncanny ability to finesse the jury into believing that your wife committed suicide by gunshot to the back of the head
I actually love being anglo, it's like we're a normal function civilization but just below the surface you find that everything is wrapped up in historical tradition because "much exceptional peoples"

What does the "N" stand for?

Attached: 1586458756500.png (532x400, 45.73K)

Negro, also Nigger, also French

No law

Attached: 0010151707.jpg (770x433, 58.17K)

pure commom law is so retarded I can't even talk about it

Civil law with legal relativity is the best system by far
The only good thing germs have ever contributed to this world
Also, EU countries should all be classified as common law, if the EU courts says anything, you might as well use your constitution as toilet paper because it's completely powerless in the face of Frankfurt and Luxembourg

Napoleonic

>Singapore
>Islamic law
Are you high

I'm a law student but I'm too lazy to read this whole thread so I'll just say civil law because it is the one we have been using here for centuries

Japan contract law especially is customary law.

I think this map has some problems

shut up, retard
el codigo civil

but who judges the judges?