Which System Is Better: Common Law Or Civil?

We have the English common law system here and the US, as they do in Canada and Australia too. In most of the rest of the world, they have the civil code system (based on the Code Napoléon). They say our common law system is best, because we would rather send 10 suspects free, that convict even one who was innocent.

But I read a lawyer here who said, that may be. If I had client, I would rather have the common law system, because he'd have more rights, and be more like to be found not guilty. But if I was tried for the same crime, and I was innocent, I'd want to be tried in the civil code system really. Because the common law system tends to convict innocent people too, he pointed out.

 

Yes Common law is mucho better

 

The optimal legal (or health care) system will produce a) very good results b) in a very short period of time c) at a very low cost. Unfortunately, such a system is not yet in sight, but artificial intelligence will probably prove useful. In any case, I am very glad that I have not been given the task of comparing different legal labyrinths!


Starts at 4:41

17:03 Stare Decisis

“The usual method, how people write about common and civil law is to take one or two instances from one member of each legal family and then to claim that these are representative. That’s where things go very wrong because legal systems are very multi-faceted and different systems within the same legal family aren't necessarily alike at all.”

“Just because the published opinions are longer elsewhere doesn’t mean that they are more truthful, so to speak, in terms of revealing what the judges were actually thinking. It’s always a performance. It’s interesting to think about the performance as performance, who’s the audience that they’re playing to and why do these audiences apparently expect different things in different places? My personal sense is that a lot of it is probably just happenstance and doesn't have a deeper meaning.”

“One difference between common and civil law that could have a profound impact but hasn't been explored at all is how judges are appointed. By and large common law jurisdictions appoint practitioners after a successful career, usually, in private practice, while civil law jurisdictions appoint graduates straight out of university. This can have all sorts of implications.”

“If it weren’t for the civil law myth, it just wouldn't make any sense for a Brazilian lawyer to say that they don't have precedent because they are a civil law country.”

“I'm not denying that there are lots of differences between systems around the world. It’s just that they don’t line up with this civil/common law division.

 

Some people think that lawyers are unscrupulous people who want violent criminals to go free. But that's not true. They are just people like you and me. And they are officers of the court, meant to argue the accused's side of the case, even if seems unpopular at the time. Kind of like the Devil's advocate in the canonization process of the Catholic Church. They serve a very important role. A person couldn't be found guilty either, if it was shown they did do their job well and in an unbiased manner. And they don't always like the result of their work either. O. J. Simpson attorney Robert Kardashian said he didn't like the verdict in that 1994-5 case. Actually, he said that he didn't like the way the defense was handled. But that is what everyone assumed he meant. Also, he and O. J. Simpson were friends since 1967. After the trial, they stopped talking to each other.

And saying an attorney should deliberately do a terrible job so their client can be convicted is like saying a waitress should spit in her customer's food because he's an evil man. It doesn't work that way. Both have a job to do. And an obligation not to show malice or bias towards the person they serve. At least while they are working at that role.

 

Also, speaking of attorneys and attorney Rob Kardashian (let's forget about O. J. Simpson for the moment). Robert Kardashian (who was a longtime friend of Simpson) said at the end of the trial, he thought the case was handled horribly. By the lawyers, as I said. And most people agree the way the other lawyers, F. Lee Bailey, Johnnie Cochran, and Alan Dershowitz, handled the case was very unethical. Some at the time even thought it was even illegal. Lawyers aren't usually allowed to get away with stuff like that. In fact, if you're poor, they probably won't even file the necessary motions. Let alone ones that are unnecessary, pointless and even illegal perhaps, to file. Because most people don't have that kind of money. The money to hire a legal team like that, and get away with things like. If fact right now 85% of the prisoners at the Rikers Island prison complex are still waiting to for trial there, because they can't even afford to make bail.

 

A little of both