Which legal system is the best?

File: 1454039865189.gif (737KB, 200x250px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 200x250px

>>55047732
>Bangladesh
>Islamic law

>>55047792
what did you except?
there is a reason why its not part of india

whats the diffent between cival and common?

>>55047792
they were part of pakistan senpai

>>55047792
>not knowing about the indian partition
islam is the only reason bangladesh exists

>>55047930
>>55047980
I think I would no, but there is no Islamic law on a wide basis. The English Common Law that was enacted in the Colonial Times is still in effect, only personal Islamic laws for things like marriages, inheritance, and what not.


Pakistan used The English Common Law for awhile too, only to go for full Islamic Laws when Zia Ul Huq took over in 77

File: 2ec.png (572KB, 600x580px) Image search: [Google]

572KB, 600x580px

>>55047732
>paris
>london
>islamic

File: fixed.png (50KB, 1400x628px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1400x628px

>posting the outdated version'

fixed that for you senpai

>>55048245
I'm not adopting your shitty meme map, faggot.

t. OP

It's objectively common law... A judge shouldn't have the powers they have in the civil law system

>>55048004
we'd still be part of Pakistan if that were true

>>55047732
Corpus Juris Civilis > Any other legal text ever made.

No argument.

>>55047732
Sweden uses mostly civil law, but there are elements of Scandinavian common law as well. Many legal principles aren't codified, or if they are only marginally so.

>>55047948
civli is roman law, common is english

File: 1447501312032.png (100KB, 251x238px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 251x238px

>>55047732
>Louisiana

>>55047732

Roman/Civil.

>>55047948

Civil law is based, common law leads to shit systems that enforce thought crime and do not allow it's citizens to defend itself like the UK... The US is kind of an exception to that, but only because they have a VERY rigid written constitution, and their Bill of Rights is still holding out.

Mixed master race, best of both worlds.

>>55048329
>It's objectively common law...
>Objectively
Kek.
>A judge shouldn't have the powers they have in the civil law system
Such as?

Since civil law countries don't seem to have trial by jury I'm gonna say common.

>>55053016

The French influence remained fairly strong there IIRC.

>>55053031
All of America's self defence laws are based on English common law

>>55047732
Nordic, which this maps doesn't seem to take into account.

>>55053077
>Since civil law countries don't seem to have trial by jury
Depends on the country I believe... Don't Scandi states have juries?
> I'm gonna say common.
Why are Jury trials better though? From what I read and heard it barely makes a difference in outcome or sentencing..

>>55053125
>All of America's self defence laws are based on English common law

Perhaps, but there isn't a lot of it left in English common law.. These days you seem to be better off defending yourself in countries with a continental system, especially if you break the law in the process (by using an illegal gun or pepper spray or something like that).... America's right to bear arms was based on the UK system as well, but times can change.

>>55053129

Isn't Nordic just civil/germanic in tradition like most of the continent?

>>55053139
>Depends on the country I believe... Don't Scandi states have juries?

There was no jury for Brievik

>Why are Jury trials better though?

Because trial by your peers is a basic human right.

>>55053139
No, we don't have juries, but we have lay judges.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_judge#Sweden

>>55053191
Yeah, but I think there are enough differences from mainland Europe to warrant its own category.

>>55053242
>There was no jury for Brievik
Can't remember, but you're probably right.
>Because trial by your peers is a basic human right.

It isn´t though.. You have the right to a fair trail with everything that entails, but being tried by a jury of your peers is not one of the things a fair trail necessarily entails.

>>55053247
>No, we don't have juries, but we have lay judges.

Interesting.. I read this on that wiki:
>In practice, lay judges in Sweden are elderly, wealthy, and better-educated.[36] Lay judges are usually politicians with the local authority from which they are appointed, appointed in proportion to political party representation at the last local elections.

Does this mean that lay-judges tend to be of the political establishment, or does it just seem that way?

>>55053280

Like those lay judges, or is there more? I always thought that Scandi's more or less have the same Civil tradition as the Germanic states..

>>55053383
Judges can be bribed and have personal interpretation of the law. Not so much with 20 random people off the street.

Whenever you see some stupid sentencing in the UK like someone sent to prison for a month for racism or something like that, it's ALWAYS because some left wing judge was used instead of a jury.

A jury would never convict anyone of "racism"

>>55053383
>Does this mean that lay-judges tend to be of the political establishment, or does it just seem that way?
Yes, they're appointed by the political parties who are represented in the local parliament.

>Like those lay judges, or is there more? I always thought that Scandi's more or less have the same Civil tradition as the Germanic states..
Not sure, I'm not educated in law, so I can't really tell you what the big differences are.

>>55053517
>Whenever you see some stupid sentencing in the UK like someone sent to prison for a month for racism or something like that, it's ALWAYS because some left wing judge was used instead of a jury.
>A jury would never convict anyone of "racism"

How does the choice work in the UK? Is it just that some types of cases are tried by jury, and other by judge? How does the distinction get made... Like would it be possible to have the same 'racism' case tried by either a jury or a judge?

>>55053599

The "crime" of racism isn't a big enough crime to warrant a trip to crown court, only civil court and civil courts don't use juries.

This is why it's shit.

>>55053715
>only civil court and civil courts don't use juries.
>This is why it's shit.

But those are civil cases then right, not penal? How do you even get conviced to a month in prison in a civil court?

Or am I totally mixing up Common law definitions with Civil-system definitions?

>>55053766
I dunno I didn't study law.

>The modern day jury is used today in the following courts:

>Crown court: for matters concerning criminal indictment, e.g. serious criminal offences such as murder manslaughter and rape. There will be a jury consisting of 12 members. 15 members will be called upon to complete jury service, and 12 out of these 15 will randomly be selected to sit trial.

>The High court: Cases involving defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and any cases alleging fraud. A jury consisting of 12 members will be used.

>The Queen's Bench Division on certain types of cases

>County court: Cases involving defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and any cases alleging fraud. A jury of 8 members will be used in these cases.

>Coroners' court, in a few cases involving Deaths: in prison. In police custody, through an industrial accident or where health and safety of members of the public is involved. A jury in the coroners' court will consist of between 7 and 11 members.

Everything else is a civil court case which don't have Juries. And no juries leads to them giving stupid sentencing.

>>55053766
>Civil law is a branch of the law. In common law countries such as England, Wales, and the United States, the term refers to non-criminal law. The law relating to civil wrongs and quasi-contracts is part of the civil law. The law of property is embraced by civil law. Civil law can, like criminal law, be divided into substantive law and procedural law. The rights and duties of individuals amongst themselves is the primary concern of civil law.

>>55053806
>Everything else is a civil court case which don't have Juries. And no juries leads to them giving stupid sentencing.

>Civil courts
>Sentencing

Can another Briton shed some light on this? Under Common law, do Civil courts sentence people to prison?

I the Civil-system civil courts are all about private disputes, and they never lead to imprisonment. People get convicted to paying damages, and in some cases to rectify statements/publications (in case of libel, defamation etc) or to rectify a situation.. Basically if you win a civil case, the other party is forced to put you back in the position they were in before they wronged you. So they have to pay for your damages or rectify the situation in another way... Punishment doesn't really come into it.

>>55047732
Semi-sharia+english law ftw

>>55053867

But then I'm right in assuming that Civil judges don't send you to prison, right? In Common law it's (iirc, it's been a while) all about 'Torts' and such, and the system mostly focusses on 'fixing' situations in which private parties have been wronged, like:>>55053890

Or am I wrong?

Common law is moron tier where people get thrown into jail for ten years regardless of their circumstances because someone else got thrown into jail for ten years for a similar crime half a century ago.

>>55053517
>Not so much with 20 random people off the street.
HE LOOKS LIKE A CRIMINAL, I BET HE IS A CRIMINAL, HE OUGHTA BE THROWN INTO JAIL

t. horde of moms

>>55053940
In all the cases so far that concern "racism" they are sentenced to "time served" because they've already been waiting to go to trial several weeks.

>>55054004

But in a civil court or a criminal one?

>>55054004

Oh, and how the fuck is it possible to have people jailed for weeks while waiting for a trial on 'racism' charges... I'm assuming violence and such do not fall under 'racism'?


The fuck Britain?!

>>55054042
>what is an appeal

File: 1454174915915.jpg (253KB, 1080x1283px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1080x1283px

>london
>paris

>>55053997

The alternative is that one day in civil law you get a leftist femislam judge that rapes you to the fullest extent of the law.

Cases like Zimmerman and Offiecer Furgesson would have probably ended in a guilty verdict under civil law systems.

I'd prefer to take my changes with people off the street that have common sense.

Like I said, all the bad sentencing in the UK is caused by juries not being used for those cases.

>being at the mercy of bunch of uneducated emotional plebs and a the whims of an arbitrary judge
Absolutely disgusting

Tbh, when it comes to divorce the Roman is better than the common Law. Because with the Common law the judge can throw your prenup down the shredder. Why? Because fuck you thats why.

File: 03b.png (121KB, 400x381px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 400x381px

>>55054107
>The decision of one person is better than the decision of 15

>>55054053
Most of the time when you hear that someone was arrested for "racism" they're quietly released a few days later.

Ofc you'd never see that in the news because that's not the way we're playing the narrative.

>>55054095
>The alternative is that one day in civil law you get a leftist femislam judge that rapes you to the fullest extent of the law.

The flip side of that is that in places like London or Rotterdam 'a jury of one's peers' might as well be a fucking Sharia Court..

>Cases like Zimmerman and Offiecer Furgesson would have probably ended in a guilty verdict under civil law systems.

>Zimmerman
>Guilty
Wew lad.. If that were to happen in your system, that wouldn't exactly be an endorsement. Don't remember the circumstance of the other case, but Zimmerman was rightfully aquitted imo.

>Like I said, all the bad sentencing in the UK is caused by juries not being used for those cases.

What sort of cases? Are you the same guy that was talking about 1-month sentences for 'racism'?

>>55054140
A single trained jet fighter pilot is also better than 15 R/C plane hobbyists.

File: 1452823552966.jpg (35KB, 600x539px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x539px

>>55054140
>the decision of a panel of 3 professional judges is worse than the decision of 15 random plebs

>>55053139
Brazil only has jury for intentional crimes against life (murder, abortion and so on)

>>55054214
>>55054233
1 judge for basic civil cases and 3 judges for more complicated cases. At least that's how it is here.

>>55054140

In serious cases there are always more than one Judge in the civil system.. At least in this country. Simple cases: 1 judge. More serious cases: 3 judges.. Last instance cases at the Hoge Raad (sort of like Supreme Court) have 5 judges.

And judges, by their very nature, are highly educated legal professional... Juries of ones peers, are not by very definition. I think there are positive things to say for both.

>>55054198

The fact that they get arrested to begin with is fairly disturbing in itself.. Are those cases like those 'racial harrasment' charges that Paul Weston was arrested for a few years ago?

>>55054204
>The flip side of that is that in places like London or Rotterdam 'a jury of one's peers' might as well be a fucking Sharia Court..

But Juries are selected from people who aren't from the area and they're purposefully made up of multiple races, faiths and political ideologies.

Plus both the prosecution and the defense has to agree to a jurors use at the trial. They can choose to eject them and get another one in.

Jury screening takes literally weeks because it's so meticulous.

>>55054382
>Jury screening takes literally weeks because it's so meticulous.

Sounds extremely impractical to be honest. It might very well be my cultural bias, but I think I prefer a system of professional judges.

Yes, we should leave all the decisions up to judges, what a great idea.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/12036287/Britain-is-no-longer-a-Christian-country-and-should-stop-acting-as-if-it-is-says-judge.html

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/dec/06/religious-teaching-school-assemblies-axe-report

>>55054444
"""""""""""""professional judges""""""""""" doesn't necessarily mean they're not idiots.

see >>55054463

בס"ד

Rabbinic law is the only legitimate source of justice in the world

File: 1429867603317.png (101KB, 300x364px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 300x364px

>LET US THROW OF THE SHACKLES OF OUR EVIL BRITISH OPPRESSORS!!
>but we'll keep their law system
lmao

>>55054559
>But we'll keep their legal system, government system, universities, hospitals, infrastructure...

>>55054490
>"""""""""""""professional judges""""""""""" doesn't necessarily mean they're not idiots.

No, but if you (more or less) pick 15 random people from your population, you're basically guaranteed to have a siginificant amount of retards... At least judges are trained and vetted before they're appointed.

>>55054463

>First article: Brit state needs to be de-Christianised
Fair enough to be honest.. Having a state-church is kind of old fashioned. Though I don't see what the Muslim society of Britain has to do with it..

>Top judge leads calls to scrap mandatory daily Christian worship in UK schools

Again, fairly acceptable. Who has mandatory worship anyway?

>>55054463
>>55054490
You do realise it's exactly common law that gives these retards the power to do whatever they want? Arbitrariness is inherent in the common law system.

>britbongs cannot comprehend the difference between common law """"""""judges"""""""" who can literally make up shit as they go along and civil law judges who have to always stick to the law as it is written

>>55054609
>Fair enough to be honest.
>Again, fairly acceptable.

You don't understand. Removing Christianity from UK society wont have it replaced by Atheism. It will be replaced by Islam.

The report calling to remove Christianity from British society is also calling for Muslim clerics to be allowed to sit in Parliament in seats that are currently held by the top Bishops. It also wants to have the Qur'an read at the next correlation of the monarch.

In Britain less Christianity is codeword for more Islam.

>>55047732
whats the difference between common and civil?

>>55054612
>civil law judges who have to always stick to the law as it is written

There is some interpretation at the highest level in this country.. I believe in Germany too. We have a 'High Council' that can examine cases at the last instance on points of law and procedure (not facts, that's only in earlier instances), and in Germany they have a constitutional court which interprets law in light of the constitution iirc.

>>55054769
Under civil law a judge decides if you are guilty or not and sentences you.

Under common law a jury decides if you are guilty or not and the judge sentences you.

The main arguments for and against come down to if you prefer to put your trust in 1 legal professional or 15 normal people.

>>55054753
This, the Anglican church is a bit silly but it being the state religion is preferable to butthurt Muslims clogging up the house of lords.

>>55054753

That's always the danger you run in non-secular societies... The same problem in the Netherlands: We have references to gods and religion in our laws, so Muslims get to claim all sorts of niceties that were originally meant for Christians (and the handful of Jews we used to have).. France doesn't have these issues, dispite being (besides Rome) the mother of all Civil systems.

>>55054850
>1 legal professional

Or 3. Or 5.

>>55054792
Law interpretation in funland is mostly based around an ongoing exchange between courts, the parliamentary committee in charge of giving recommendations on interpreting laws and in a limited scope precedents which no judge is forced to follow. The lawyers association is also pretty active.

The so called supreme court only handles court cases and don't actually set precedents as such, although their interpretation is usually the best simply do to spending more time and resources on the matter.

Why even have lawyers in civil law if it's all up to the judge?

>>55055231

>Why even have barristers in common law if it's all up to the jury?

wait people actually WANT to be judged by 15 idiots to stupid to get out of jury duty?

>>55055231
You don't need a lawyer though. However having one does help since they handle court related work on a daily basis and can assist you on making a solid enough case if you do have to go to court. They're not the ones who do the judging.

Also I never realised having a lawyer was mandatory in common law.

>>55055231
Because you actually need legal arguments to convince a judge and can't appeal to muh feelings.

>>55055272
Because they explain and convince the jury on the defendants guilt or innocence.

>>55055353
wait people actually WANT to be judged by a leftwing muslim juidge?

File: nazimeme.png (309KB, 1454x993px) Image search: [Google]

309KB, 1454x993px

Yes.
Because left-wingers are smarter than brainwashed right-wingers.

>>55053016
Still has French civil law elements for stage laws

>>55056100
>this
thank you

>>55053016
Say that to my face and not online

File: porkie3.jpg (190KB, 512x600px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 512x600px

>>55056100
You got any rare porkies?

America, why ? Are you still a fucking colony ?

>>55047948
civil law follows statutes and legislation very closely without much room for interpretation whereas common law (judge made law) is law which is changed and formed based on a precedent. both have flaws

>>55051060
Iuris

FTFY peregrinus grecus