>>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
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.
>>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.
>>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. 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?
>>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?
>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.
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
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.
>>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'?
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.
>>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.
>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.