Civil Law Vs Common Law

[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law The law is meant to provide justice to people. So the main advantages of the common law system is that it is consistent, adaptive, equal and independent.

Holmes in “The Path Of The Law” has taken a pragmatic approach in understanding and evaluating law. Holmes’s arguments had a great impact in the formulation of the American legal realism. With his arguments on eradication of ‘naturals rights’ and ‘morals’ from law, Holmes helped the American legal realism reach where it is now. The Path Of The Law begins by providing reasons as to why people engage lawyers in the first place. One of the reasons being that, in many cases the command of the public force is entrusted with judges, and to enforce its decisions, the whole power of the state would be used.

This is not to say that judges do not operate under the legal boundaries as set by the constitution, but some have argued that since the discretionary powers of judges and Supreme Court judges, in this case, can significantly affect the outcome of any judicial decision, then their ideology and personal philosophy is quite important especially when they would be voting on significant cases. Finally, both sides of the divide recognize the importance, and role ideology plays in the major legal decisions. Ideology matters and a person’s thinking is bound to influence the way they will vote on important issues, and this is why interest groups on both sides of the ideological divide have strong reasons for making judicial confirmation a high priority because they know what is at stake in who occupies the federal bench. Lawrence H. Tribe. God Save This Honourable Court, 87, 90 – 91 (1985).

My perception of the court system has stayed the same. I have respect for the system due to the impartial sentencing and the structure of the court system to deliver justice. The court system allows an accused person to appeal a decision imposed by a lower court due to errors. The court systems must change over time due to issues arising concerning violation of current laws and citizen rights, the government must make changes to correct the systems or make new laws. For instance, the United States Supreme Court, the supreme law of the land make changes to laws that will affect the nation.

This distinction in the law is termed as functions. According to the amendment, the judge is designated to try the law whereas the jury can try according to facts. This distinguishing between the law and fact is important as it gives the legitimacy to the decree of juries. At the same time, the amendment prevents from violation of the justified legal anticipations of the

Traditionally, the adversarial system’s function in criminal court was to resolve disputes by unfolding the truth behind the dispute. The system, effectively implemented would afford each party the opportunity to effectively argue their case. Though this solution seems admirable and well intended, studies suggest that, as practiced today, the adversarial is not effective in uncovering the truth in legal proceedings (Findley, 2012). This paper will attempt to answer the question as to whether the truth is a quality that the courts would forfeit in the pursuit of justice under the adversarial criminal court system. The first section of the paper will address the meaning of truth as it is applied to the research.

The way something is interpreted is how it is used in the practices of law, so indeed the way something is written is imperative. Judicial Review is never actually explicitly stated and described in the constitution. The importance of interpretation goes right along with the concept of judicial review. If you boil things down that’s all judicial review is, a concept. Now this ‘concept’ was derived from the constitution by our justices in the supreme court, but it is something that falls under the interpretation of the constitution.

Throughout the history of mankind, society has defined itself by law and the order that law creates. “Laws are the binding rules of conduct or action which the vast majority of the society has to abide”. Justice on the other hand is rather an abstract concept. There is no right or wrong definition of justice, but is rather agreed upon the concept of being fair and equal. Many would assume that the sole purpose of law is to establish justice, which seems like a wonderful philosophical theory but is slightly difficult to follow.

Procedural law requires notice and a hearing while substantive due process is governmental objective. Basically, substantive due process has to do with very specific fundamental rights of citizens’ while procedural due process is when a citizen is not awarded the proper procedures under law. Substantive due process is additional to procedural due process. Procedural law is the analysis of how law is administrated while substantive is an individual analysis of the law. Procedural law has to do with both criminal and civil law.

This binds the crowd together as they created unforgettable memories, a better understanding to one another and thrives from their differences as they provide different forms of support and motivation. In essence, why should we care about a flawed government system that already restrains each one of us? Why should we care about a peaceful protest rather than a violent one that can harm others and oneself? Why should we even care about a divided society? The answer is that we shouldn’t just care about problems, but it’s our responsibility to take action as civil disobedience is fair and needed for any nation to be treated fairly.