Common Law versus Civil Law

[Blue3]

I know what the main differences are between them.

What do you think are the pro's and con's of each? And which do you think is superior, and why?

[Torie]

I will answer this in a couple of days. This is one of my favorite topics to lecture upon. I just love the common law system.   Grumps after I put it up, will not doubt post one of his tl/dr thingies.

[Blue3]

So many legal scholars and lovers in this forum, and only 1 post so far? Guys, you're disappointing me

[All Along The Watchtower]

Would love to read some insights from posters who live in civil law countries.

[President Johnson]

Would love to read some insights from posters who live in civil law countries.

Here you go.

In my opinion, civil law is better because it covers more eventualities and precedents are less or not important. Often they are out of time and can be interpreted by everybody, as he or she wants. I also think that judges are more capable to make (often complex) decisions rather than grand juries of very ordinary people.

[Blue3]

Any more thoughts?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think common law is better for a healthy democracy. Civil law with inquisitorial trials just isn't very participatory or responsive.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Civil law by far. Common law gives far too much leeway to judges and is likely to result in arbitrary and unequal applications as well as instability based on their whims. The law must be one and the same everywhere, clearly stated from its inception, and only change through the action of the legislative body.

I think common law is better for a healthy democracy.

It seems to me that the only countries that use common law (that is, basically former British colonies) are all fairly lacking in democratic standards. There is a wide variation among Civil Law countries, but they include all of Northern Europe, which strikes me as a far better model to aspire to.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think common law is better for a healthy democracy.

It seems to me that the only countries that use common law (that is, basically former British colonies) are all fairly lacking in democratic standards. There is a wide variation among Civil Law countries, but they include all of Northern Europe, which strikes me as a far better model to aspire to.

I don't think common law is necessarily better for fostering democratic institutions; I mean that I think it's better for countries where democratic institutions are already well-established, whereas with newer democracies or mixed regimes it's probably best to have the clarity and systematization that civil law provides. This is a prescriptive hunch (and not really much more than a hunch), and not necessarily connected to the systems that various countries actually have.

[Blue3]

For reference, these are the legal systems the countries of the world operate under:

[Antonio the Sixth]

I didn't mean to say that Anglo-Saxon countries were particularly undemocratic, but they're also clearly not shining example, and that's what confused me about Nathan's post (though I understand his point now). But honestly, when Anglo-Saxon countries do something a certain way and the entire rest of the world does the opposite, I'll give the rest of the world the benefit of doubt.

While the law can't cover every single situation, it can provide clear criteria to apply to resolve unambiguous cases, rather than relying on such shaky and always arbitrary notions such as "precedent". For example, most European penal codes set specific penalties for a given crimes, but also specify how much can be detracted or added to them in cases where extenuating/aggravating circumstances are found. Civil law systems also have jury trials for certain circumstances (the most serious crimes usually), but in general I think it's better to avoid it when the legal issues to arbitrate are particularly technical. Also, I suspect that juries on average impose harsher sentences than judges, so from a left-wing standpoint they might not be such a great thing.

[Blue3]

I didn't mean to say that Anglo-Saxon countries were particularly undemocratic, but they're also clearly not shining example

Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK are only behind Scandinavia.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I didn't mean to say that Anglo-Saxon countries were particularly undemocratic, but they're also clearly not shining example

Countries like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the UK are only behind Scandinavia.

All except NZ and Australia use FPP, which is inherently undemocratic. Australia's immigration policy violates basic human rights to an extent far beyond what even the most right-wing European countries would find acceptable. Several of them also have serious issues about control of the media by powerful private interests.

Again, nothing too out of the norm, but I wouldn't call any of them role models except maybe NZ.

[Blue3]

I don't want to derail my own thread, but which countries do you consider the most democratic in the world, and where do the Anglosphere countries rank on that list?

And do you really think civil law / common law are a valid indicator of how "democratic" a country is?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't want to derail my own thread, but which countries do you consider the most democratic in the world, and where do the Anglosphere countries rank on that list?

The Scandinavians, Germany and the rest of the "Germanosphere", Benelux, and I guess NZ. Most of the Anglosphere countries come after that, along with places like France, Spain and Italy. The US is a notch behind.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't my point, read my posts again.

[Mopsus]

Civil law makes sense if the legal system is rooted in human rights; common law makes sense if the legal system is rooted in social norms.

Personally, I don't believe that human rights are a fiction worth perpetuating, so I side with common law. 

[Senator-elect Spark]

Common law