Common Law or Civil Law?

[Blue3]

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

[brucejoel99]

Both approaches have their pros & cons. For example, there wasn't a great deal of written law in the common law world even into the 19th century. But now, even common law countries have become heavily driven by statutes & codes, recognizing that codified law does a great deal towards promoting uniformity in adjudication & accessibility. At the same time, much of the civil law world now looks a lot like the common law, i.e., w/ judges writing detailed & reasoned opinions referencing & interpreting law & precedent, even though the reasons for citing precedent may be different. Many jurisdictions also allow for some degree of judge-made law, which is the hallmark of the common law.

Personally, I think that common law promotes a more just justice system b/c it gives judges more discretion to distinguish sometimes slight differences in cases, but the common characterization of civil law as rigid & riddled w/ gaps hasn't been accurate in a long time. The reality is that most nations, over time, have taken a "buffet menu" approach to the law, borrowing those elements that work for their particular governments & societies, such that the differences between the two systems are less than what they once were.