His country doesn't use common law

If common law is so great, then why did every country who had a choice choose civil law?
China, Japan, Korea, Turkey, all South American countries, all new European countries?

Case law is essentially the law that stands unless there is legislation to the contrary. So it basically fills in the gaps of statutes. Even Judges, as comparatively powerful as they are, are still ultimately bound by the legislation currently in force, which ultimately makes this somewhat a pissing contest.

Your counter argument is fallacious. These aren't drunk village tribunals, Theyre federally appoint circuit court judges who must have a rigorous education, 99% competency of legal knowledge and have to be sound of mind (sober).

haha holy shit even south america and regions of africa have a better legal system than sharts xDDD

Tbf, it's not like the law is respected in any of those places.

Out of curiosity, what exactly happens in a Civil Law system when the legislation says nothing about the case at hand?

When there is no law, there is no crime.
For anything between two parties you deconstruct the case in its parts and check them individually. You will always come to a conclusion since our laws are really general

nice

Well, I rather not rely on luck(or contacts) for getting a judge who is not a man hating feminist or something..

Broadly similar to the Common Law in that the Judges have the authority to weigh in whenever there is a "gap" in the law using general principles either in the statute itself or by tradition to reach an inevitable conclusion, the main difference being that the Judge's decision is binding for future Judges in future cases (unless of course the legislature says otherwise). Also, the "no law no crime" thing also applies since most common law jurisdictions have abolished common-law offenses other than contempt of court.

The more I read/learn about them the more I come to the conclusion that they're more similar than different in general, especially compared to stuff like Sharia.

>The only thing the English have over the Scots

We are also not cucks, we are not socialists, we are not fat, we are not heroin addicts etc

Judge would need to use his legal magic and reason his way to that case or simply set the lad free.

Same here more or less, without much of the "set the lad free" part, see

youtube.com/watch?v=G1tJJO_pVvQ

>the only thing the English have over the Scots

Mate, you'd be hard pressed to find anything the Scots have over the English

Common Law only works in Anglo countries because it's trial by Jury of your peers....
Would you want non-anglo scum deciding your fate?

You know the prospect of a bunch of rednecks sitting as jury scares the bejesus out of every European. Never mind the punitive damage and all that sort of wizardry

>rednecks

Russian propaganda

Judges are most retarded thing there is. Its literally feels before reals

they beat us at heart attacks and heroin overdoses

not here, its a super strict job

Reminder that the unspoken function of a trial jury is nullification where a conviction would be contrary to local custom and opinion

...

America is still the only one civilian juries decide the verdict in a criminal case isn't it?

Gonna get scary after murrican feminists and BLM take over all trial juries.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial#The_jury_trial_in_various_jurisdictions

I'm pretty sure you can opt to have a trial without jurors.

this is why I voted Brexit 2bh not even memeing.

what's really funny is that my lawyer friends were all staunchly remain. cucks.

>Ireland is the only EU country that uses common law
EU directive installing civil law when

No, I believe that's everywhere in the Anglosphere 2bh, at least for felonies. We're the only country I believe with indictment by grand jury though.

Not in Federal felonies, I don't believe, but State ones yeah.

you get interviewed beforehand to ensure you don't have some sort of vendetta or political belief that would make you automatically go one way or another

Assuming Brexit was non-binding, the UK would have an opt-out of that like it does with the Schengen Area and the Euro.

>Brexit was non-binding

>Assuming Brexit was non-binding,
Why would it be binding

independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-result-not-legally-binding-lawyers-letter-a7129626.html

Trial by jury is fucking dumb though, it's too easy to manipulate a bunch of ordinary people. That's why your trials are based on feelings and they are like shows.

In any case my opt out point still stands.

Even if it was non-binding, train has already gone and EU would rather pressure them to leave than let them to remain. UK is more trouble than it is worth.

That's why most if not all States have an option for the defendant to opt for a bench trial, and why they're standard with misdemeanors (in any case, the majority of criminal cases never go to trial anyway).

>poo law
dunno why I was expecting otherwise desu

Same could be said for any EU member that's not Sweden, Germany and France.

It's good that there's a system like that in place. Could you opt for that in a felony case? I'd be scared shitless about getting convicted for let's say a murder I didn't commit just because people are thirsty for revenge.

bbc.com/news/business-37538459

>On Sunday, the prime minister said she would trigger Article 50, the clause needed to start the process, by the end of March 2017.
>That means the UK is likely to leave the EU by mid-2019.

>not Sweden
Overestimating your country much? Sweden is not even eurocountry so it leaving would have minimal impact.

And yes, it could be said, but UK was only legit roadblock for EU train.

Aren't there supposed to be rumblings from the Dutch about them leaving too?

Have not heard anything legitimate about that. Just a few bong media rumours and obscure nobodies saying stuff.

It depends on the state. Trial by a jury of your peers is considered a right here, and that right is taken more seriously the more serious a crime is, but I believe all States (not the Federal Government, though), allow you to waive it. Federally you can only waive it if the prosecution consents.

But as said before ITT, a) jurors are screened to ensure that the revenge motive is minimized and b) the verdict has to be unanimous one way or another, otherwise a new trial is done. And, per Wikipedia, "Research indicates there is not a consistent difference between penalties handed down in jury trials and those handed down in bench trials." If you're insistent on your innocence and get convicted anyway, you can always appeal and move for a mistrial.

Hi

You know, for being the Common Law, it sure isn't that common!