Common Law vs Civil Law

K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

I'd like to get a perspective on what people here at FG favor in particular.

I personally see good and bad aspects in both

Common Law vs Civil Law
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

American or other depends on which country your in K
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

fuzzywuzzy;1271861 wrote: American or other depends on which country your in K


Surely we can discuss the logic behind the fundamental aspects of both...
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

I don't like the idea of statutes yet I don't like the idea of judges having an overwhelming amount of freedom to decide punishments, it has a much larger potential for corruption than I prefer.
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Ahso! »

My logic tells me that there isn't any difference between the two, dude. Logically speaking common, meaning the same as everyone else and civil can only associate themselves within the divine. I doubt anyone is either common or civil 100% of the time and if they were I'd have no problem shooting them in the head, burying them in shallow graves and resurrecting their bodies one at a time on the day of judgment in order to prove logically that there is no law whatsoever - never was and never will be.

A case in point would be the rabbit that ate the key to my dorm room while I was considering the rise and fall of the chipmunks. Do you think they cared about the difference between civil and common law? My logic tells me no 100% of the time. Now on the other hand, if it had been a horse that ate the key, the chipmunks would be hell bent on seeing to legal matters in both common and civil courts.

All this precludes the end times of course of which there actually isn't any. If God who doesn't exist was to say to me that fans turn from right to left, which is in fact against my logic, and makes no sense, I'd buy him a cup of java and teach him a thing or two about physics and mechanical law. Mechanical law is common sense, not common law.

Any Questions!
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

Ahso!;1271868 wrote: My logic tells me that there isn't any difference between the two, dude. Logically speaking common, meaning the same as everyone else and civil can only associate themselves within the divine. I doubt anyone is either common or civil 100% of the time and if they were I'd have no problem shooting them in the head, burying them in shallow graves and resurrecting their bodies one at a time on the day of judgment in order to prove logically that there is no law whatsoever - never was and never will be.

A case in point would be the rabbit that ate the key to my dorm room while I was considering the rise and fall of the chipmunks. Do you think they cared about the difference between civil and common law? My logic tells me no 100% of the time. Now on the other hand, if it had been a horse that ate the key, the chipmunks would be hell bent on seeing to legal matters in both common and civil courts.

All this precludes the end times of course of which there actually isn't any. If God who doesn't exist was to say to me that fans turn from right to left, which is in fact against my logic, and makes no sense, I'd buy him a cup of java and teach him a thing or tow about physics and mechanical law. Mechanical law is common sense, not common law.

Any Questions!


You're not concerned in the least about murders and rapists walking the streets?

I'll just go ahead and rack this one up into the "Neither!"
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Rapists and murderers? what's that got to do with common or civil law . ?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Ahso! »

K.Snyder;1271874 wrote: You're not concerned in the least about murders and rapists walking the streets?

I'll just go ahead and rack this one up into the "Neither!"
Neither

Neither Nei"ther (n[=e]"[~e]r or n[imac]"[~e]r; 277),

a. [OE. neither, nother, nouther, AS. n[=a]w[eth]er,

n[=a]hwae[eth]er; n[=a] never, not + hwae[eth]er whether. The

word has followed the form of either. See No, and

Whether, and cf. Neuter, Nor.]

Not either; not the one or the other.

[1913 Webster]

Which of them shall I take?

Both? one? or neither? Neither can be enjoyed,

If both remain alive. --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

He neither loves,

Nor either cares for him. --Shak.

[1913 Webster]



-- From The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

Neither Nei"ther, conj.

Not either; generally used to introduce the first of two or

more coordinate clauses of which those that follow begin with

nor.

[1913 Webster]

Fight neither with small nor great, save only with the

king. --1 Kings

xxii. 31.

[1913 Webster]

Hadst thou been firm and fixed in thy dissent,

Neither had I transgressed, nor thou with me. --Milton.

[1913 Webster]

When she put it on, she made me vow

That I should neither sell, nor give, nor lose it.

--Shak.

[1913 Webster]

Note: Neither was formerly often used where we now use nor.

"For neither circumcision, neither uncircumcision is

anything at all." --Tyndale. "Ye shall not eat of it,

neither shall ye touch it." --Gen. iii. 3. Neither is

sometimes used colloquially at the end of a clause to

enforce a foregoing negative (nor, not, no). "He is

very tall, but not too tall neither." --Addison. " `I

care not for his thrust' `No, nor I neither.'" --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

Not so neither, no means. [Obs.] --Shak.

[1913 Webster]

Dude, i didn't say that! Logically that means that I don't believe in anything and thats just not divine truth. All truth is divine and "neither" doesn't logically fit that definition.
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

K.Snyder;1271874 wrote: You're not concerned in the least about murders and rapists walking the streets?

I'll just go ahead and rack this one up into the "Neither!"


Civil law is where I go to a court accusing you of depriving me of what's due to me. Maybe we had a contract and you didn't deliver on time, or your tree is blocking my light, or I claim you supplied shoddy goods incapable of the function you advertised.

Common law is legal precedent in both civil and criminal courts, it's what's been decided in the past as interpretations of statutes, it can be wiped out by new statute. Where it's still valid common law, and it applies to the case, it's considered to be a good reason to reach the same verdict unless a whole stack of judges overturn it which they only very rarely do. Lord Denning used to and was occasionally slapped for it.

What do you mean by Common Law vs Civil Law? It's like comparing eggs with Fridays.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

So are you saying we should get rid of some common laws? Like the one where we are not allowed to hold more than one gold mining lisence on one find? Or where we need to hold out a flag if our horse pulling the trap breaks it's leg? Or where we must cover our windows during an airraid?

Hey if **** ever hits the fan we may need them again.:D
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

or maybe (because you brought up about rapists and murderers.........police in your country need a reason to detain you or stop you or pull you over - In this country they need no such reasoning . is that what you mean? (may I just say that the majority of criminals, escapees, and warrants are brought before the courts because of random car checks and lisence checks, If police needed a reason to pull you over we'd never catch any of these barstards.)

also civil law includes the family courts etc. and arbitrational courts/tribunals ..I'd hate to do without the laws pertaining to those.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

fuzzywuzzy;1271875 wrote: Rapists and murderers?


"Rapists and murderers" has everything to do with...

Ahso!;1271868 wrote: logically that there is no law whatsoever - never was and never will be
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

"Civil Law judges resolve disputes by referring to statutory principles arrived at in advance, common law judges focus more intently on the facts of the particular case to arrive at a fair and equitable result for the litigants."

Referenced in Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia book 7

Brazilian law is based on Roman-Germanic traditions. Thus, civil law concepts prevail over common law practices. Most of Brazilian law is codified, although non-codified statutes also represent a substantial part of the system, playing a complementary role. Court decisions set out interpretive guidelines; however, they are not binding on other specific cases except in a few situations. Doctrinal works and the works of academic jurists have strong influence in law creation and in law cases. The legal system is based on the Federal Constitution, which was promulgated on 5 October 1988, and is the fundamental law of Brazil. All other legislation and court decisions must conform to its rules. As of April 2007, there have been 53 amendments. States have their own constitutions, which must not contradict the Federal Constitution. Municipalities and the Federal District do not have their own constitutions; instead, they have "organic laws" (leis orgânicas). Legislative entities are the main source of statutes, although in certain matters judiciary and executive bodies may enact legal norms.

Jurisdiction is administered by the judiciary entities, although in rare situations the Federal Constitution allows the Federal Senate to pass on legal judgments. There are also specialized military, labor, and electoral courts. The highest court is the Supreme Federal Tribunal. This system has been criticised over the last decades due to the slow pace at which final decisions are issued. Lawsuits on appeal may take several years to resolve, and in some cases more than a decade elapses before definitive rulings are made. Nevertheless, Supreme Federal Tribunal is the first court in the world to transmit its sessions on television, and more recently also in Youtube. More recently, in December 2009, the Supreme Court adopted the Twitter to display items on the day planner of the ministers, to inform the actions that arrive daily to the Court, and the most important decisions made by them.Brazil - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Am I to suspect that within any country "Thus, civil law concepts prevail over common law practices" is primitively infantile?
Ahso!
Posts: 10215
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:38 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Ahso! »

K.Snyder;1271889 wrote: "Rapists and murderers" has everything to do with...I must admit, you are one amazing dude, dude.:-6
“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities,”

Voltaire



I have only one thing to do and that's

Be the wave that I am and then

Sink back into the ocean

Fiona Apple
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

K.Snyder;1271889 wrote: "Rapists and murderers" has everything to do with...


Okay matey you obviously have an agenda here...Care to elaberate?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

K.Snyder;1271890 wrote: Am I to suspect that within any country "Thus, civil law concepts prevail over common law practices" is primitively infantile?I suspect you answered that yourself when you went to Brazil for your quote. As fuzzy said in the first response to the thread, "American or other depends on which country your in K".

I'm in England.

Civil law (common law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Civil law, as opposed to criminal law, is the branch of law dealing with disputes between individuals and/or organizations, in which compensation may be awarded to the victim

In the common law, civil law is the area of laws and justice that affect the legal status of individuals. Civil law, in this sense, is usually referred to in comparison to criminal law, which is that body of law involving the state against individuals (including incorporated organizations) where the state relies on the power given it by statutory law. For posters in other countries there's even a disambiguation page: Civil law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I take it from what you've said that your poll is between a statutory legal system, with all the law codified, and a legal system which depends on precedent? The first exists. No country, to my limited knowledge, operates the second. To be honest I still don't know what two things you're trying to compare.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

I believe precedent here only goes as far as allowing such things as evidence or to help the Judge or magistrate decide . ...could have that wrong though.

This might help, a couple of articles

Criminal procedure - Differences between civil law and common law systems

http://www.experiencefestival.com/civil ... common_law
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

fuzzywuzzy;1271920 wrote: I believe precedent here only goes as far as allowing such things as evidence or to help the Judge or magistrate decide . ...could have that wrong though.Precedent, in cases where precedent is relevant, is the law and it's put before the court by the attorneys for both sides. The facts determined from the evidence are compared to the precedents to see whether each precedent is relevant.

Civil trials can have either a jury or a judge or a magistrates' bench depending on the size of the claim or the severity of the case. If there's a jury, they decide what were the facts on the basis of the evidence. The judge or the magistrates decide on what the law says and instructs the jury on that. The jury, if there is one, then decides on the basis of the law whether the facts make the defendant guilty or not guilty. If there isn't a jury then the judge or magistrates state the facts of the case on the basis of the evidence as well as the law when coming to their verdict.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

Would anyone be completely against doing away with jurors all together or do you feel this would lead to a much higher corruption rate?

I have a huge problem with plea bargaining on top of client/attorney confidentiality as well!
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

I would hate to see juries go K, a jury gages thoughts of the community , they are able to put themselves in the shoes of the accused. Juries are a societal temperture gage and are important in my opinion.

What I hate is when "all" the facts are not brought before a jury. Evidence withheld etc.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1271863 wrote: Surely we can discuss the logic behind the fundamental aspects of both...


Could you then provide your definitions of the two because, from here, it would appear to be country dependant.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1272190 wrote: Would anyone be completely against doing away with jurors all together or do you feel this would lead to a much higher corruption rate?

I have a huge problem with plea bargaining on top of client/attorney confidentiality as well!


I do not believe that plea bargaining is a recognised process here - not to say that the police don't ever suggest that, if you admit to x we won't charge you with y but it has no legal standing and is very much frowned on.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;1272199 wrote: Could you then provide your definitions of the two because, from here, it would appear to be country dependant.


I hadn't realized the two were as different pertaining to each country.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;1272202 wrote: I do not believe that plea bargaining is a recognised process here - not to say that the police don't ever suggest that, if you admit to x we won't charge you with y but it has no legal standing and is very much frowned on.


Do you agree with "client confidentiality"?

It utterly makes me sick that defense attorney's would/could continue to defend people that have readily confessed to the crime at hand

One could argue this would place far too much power in the hands of the defense attorney so why not allow the sessions to be taped?
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

No pleas here. But when you are arrested you are not charged with just one offence because many offences make up one charge. So when the charge comes before a prosecutor the councel for the accused will disscuss what offences are more relevent to the charge and prosecuted as such. But it doesn't neccesarily mean the sentence is reduced.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

K.Snyder;1272205 wrote: Do you agree with "client confidentiality"?

It utterly makes me sick that defense attorney's would/could continue to defend people that have readily confessed to the crime at hand

One could argue this would place far too much power in the hands of the defense attorney so why not allow the sessions to be taped?


It's not the confession that is argued it's the contents of the confession and what is actually confessed. Many people have confessed to crimes they have not done. Or confessed to crimes that they only paid a small part in, but will take the whole rap out of some sought of loyalty ..........You'll find parents will do it for their children or children coersed into confessing for parents.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

fuzzywuzzy;1272216 wrote: It's not the confession that is argued it's the contents of the confession and what is actually confessed. Many people have confessed to crimes they have not done. Or confessed to crimes that they only paid a small part in, but will take the whole rap out of some sought of loyalty ..........You'll find parents will do it for their children or children coersed into confessing for parents.


Sorry, you're right, I should have elaborated more...

My emphasis are on the cases where the criminal confesses merely to have a better chance at not being convicted. The defense attorney as well as the criminal working together for the criminals release after having confessed. Taping would rule this out at the same time keeping cases of untrue confessions unchanged and probably even more so fair so that the jury doesn't grow intolerant simply because of one being accused.

It remains true that some defense attorney's try, with all of their power, to release murderers and rapists after knowing without a doubt that the criminals they're defending are as guilty as sin

It disgusts me
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1272205 wrote: Do you agree with "client confidentiality"?

It utterly makes me sick that defense attorney's would/could continue to defend people that have readily confessed to the crime at hand

One could argue this would place far too much power in the hands of the defense attorney so why not allow the sessions to be taped?


Here, I believe, the barrister has an obligation to be truthful to the court - if it could be shown that he knew the client was guilty yet still defended him he would be struck off.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;1272235 wrote: Here, I believe, the barrister has an obligation to be truthful to the court - if it could be shown that he knew the client was guilty yet still defended him he would be struck off.


Exactly so is there any acceptable reason as to why any court would allow "client confidentiality"?

Sure I understand there are false confessions but why suggest the majority would rather see divinely guilty persons go to jail yet does not force the interactions between the alleged guilty(Let's face it everyone is guilty until proven innocent or else they wouldn't be in f:lips:en court!) to be made public?

If "you're" innocent what do "you" have to hide?
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

It is the judicials job (attorneys, judges, police, juries,) to make sure that justice is seen as swift, accurate, and seen to be done. The latter being the most important.

k I've seen a tape of a confession. I was ready to hang this barstard. Then I found out what the police had said to this individual before the interview. I was dumbstruck. I was ready to hang an innocent man. They coached him through his confession and it wasn't until I found out he'd been coached that I looked at the tape again and could see it. A jury seeing this tape would have felt the same way I did.

A defence team is supposed to advise a client. It's his their job to present to the client wha the police have on them and to advise them accordingly . If a client says I wanna get off this then the defence has the right to accept this or withdraw (with permission from a judge who will usually tell a defence barrister to pull his head in and proceed with the case.) Everyone is entitled to their "OWN" defence. Not the defence of the barrister but their 'own'. The barrister does not own the defence.

Plus there is another element to this . Say you and your neighbour were having a dispute over a fence line . You build a fence ...he tears it down . you're angry you go see city hall about it . They come out and supposedly solve the situation. You build your fence again. he begins to tear it down and you go to confront him knowing the law is on your side . He begins to scuffle with you. During the frakar you accidently hit him with a shovel . You kill him with a lucky shot to the head. (not so lucky for him). the police turn up. they ask you did you hit him ...You say yes. (you're an honest man) they inform you that he's dead and that you've most likely killed him with the blow to the head . On the face of it you've just Murdered your neighbour.

Now your defence team arrives . It's their job to ensure that a court is told of the 'mitigating circumstances' that led to the death of this person. You could be innocent of a charge that on the face of it looks like a terrible crime. and if the media gets a hold of it worse.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

fuzzywuzzy;1272244 wrote: It is the judicials job (attorneys, judges, police, juries,) to make sure that justice is seen as swift, accurate, and seen to be done. The latter being the most important.

k I've seen a tape of a confession. I was ready to hang this barstard. Then I found out what the police had said to this individual before the interview. I was dumbstruck. I was ready to hang an innocent man. They coached him through his confession and it wasn't until I found out he'd been coached that I looked at the tape again and could see it. A jury seeing this tape would have felt the same way I did.

A defence team is supposed to advise a client. It's his their job to present to the client wha the police have on them and to advise them accordingly . If a client says I wanna get off this then the defence has the right to accept this or withdraw (with permission from a judge who will usually tell a defence barrister to pull his head in and proceed with the case.) Everyone is entitled to their "OWN" defence. Not the defence of the barrister but their 'own'. The barrister does not own the defence.

Plus there is another element to this . Say you and your neighbour were having a dispute over a fence line . You build a fence ...he tears it down . you're angry you go see city hall about it . They come out and supposedly solve the situation. You build your fence again. he begins to tear it down and you go to confront him knowing the law is on your side . He begins to scuffle with you. During the frakar you accidently hit him with a shovel . You kill him with a lucky shot to the head. (not so lucky for him). the police turn up. they ask you did you hit him ...You say yes. (you're an honest man) they inform you that he's dead and that you've most likely killed him with the blow to the head . On the face of it you've just Murdered your neighbour.

Now your defence team arrives . It's their job to ensure that a court is told of the 'mitigating circumstances' that led to the death of this person. You could be innocent of a charge that on the face of it looks like a terrible crime. and if the media gets a hold of it worse.


Interrogation tapes are already seen anyway so it would be in the best interest of the accused to then have the interaction between his/her attorney taped, if such is the case, so that the precedent set by the interrogation tape can be challenged. The attorney isn't going to be interrogating the accused.

There are quite alot of incidences of self defense that are extremely hard to judge.

I know exactly what you're saying fuzzy and I do agree that most people do need defense counseling but until I see a percentage anywhere close to 50% concerning people who's accused and jailed no way I would consider an interrogation tape similar to one of the conferences between the accused and his/her attorney
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

Bryn Mawr;1272202 wrote: I do not believe that plea bargaining is a recognised process here - not to say that the police don't ever suggest that, if you admit to x we won't charge you with y but it has no legal standing and is very much frowned on.No court in England would ever agree to recognise a plea bargained lighter sentence. The nearest we get to a plea bargain is a prosecution for a lesser offence in return for active cooperation by the defendant and a guilty plea. The prosecution has no capability of offering a reduced tariff on behalf of the judge.

K.Snyder;1272205 wrote: Do you agree with "client confidentiality"?

It utterly makes me sick that defense attorney's would/could continue to defend people that have readily confessed to the crime at handIn England, any lawyer who defended a client pleading not guilty in court knowing him to be guilty would be struck off and lose his livelihood.

Client confidentiality is a totally separate issue.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

No, I'm afraid he wouldn't spot. He'd just be a very very good solicitor/barrister. and who of which would be in great demand.
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

Firstly, it's the rule; secondly, it's hammered into their heads when they train; thirdly, lawyers have been struck off the roll for exactly that offence. Why on earth would any lawyer put their entire career into the hands of one of their guilty clients, given that the client could then have the lawyer struck off just by ratting on him to the Law Society at any time during the rest of his career? It would be suicidal. It would be an open invitation to be bled dry by blackmail.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

fuzzywuzzy;1272259 wrote: No, I'm afraid he wouldn't spot. He'd just be a very very good solicitor/barrister. and who of which would be in great demand.


He'd be a criminal of the same degree as his/her guilty client:yh_sick by any moral existence
fuzzywuzzy
Posts: 6596
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by fuzzywuzzy »

Okay guys !! if you insist:yh_rotfl............ Nothing to complain about our judicial system then?
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

Far less than about the legislative system. Problems with the judiciary or even with law enforcement pale into insignificance when compared to the statutes passed into law by the legislature.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

fuzzywuzzy;1272274 wrote: Okay guys !! if you insist:yh_rotfl............ Nothing to complain about our judicial system then?


Give it a good think...How many people are immediately released from detainment compared to how many people are jailed after having been detained?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1272238 wrote: Exactly so is there any acceptable reason as to why any court would allow "client confidentiality"?

Sure I understand there are false confessions but why suggest the majority would rather see divinely guilty persons go to jail yet does not force the interactions between the alleged guilty(Let's face it everyone is guilty until proven innocent or else they wouldn't be in f:lips:en court!) to be made public?

If "you're" innocent what do "you" have to hide?


Client confidentiality covers information given to the Barrister / Solicitor in the course of preparing the defence that, whilst not confessing to the crime, the defendant would not wish to be placed in the public domain - mostly personal information not used in the defence and, quite possibly, not directly relevant to the case.
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Bryn Mawr »

spot;1272263 wrote: Firstly, it's the rule; secondly, it's hammered into their heads when they train; thirdly, lawyers have been struck off the roll for exactly that offence. Why on earth would any lawyer put their entire career into the hands of one of their guilty clients, given that the client could then have the lawyer struck off just by ratting on him to the Law Society at any time during the rest of his career? It would be suicidal. It would be an open invitation to be bled dry by blackmail.


Which is not to say you don't get crooked Barristers / Solicitors and that it never happens - just that the vast majority are straight and Could not justify risking it.

Didn't the Cray's have a tame Barrister who they paid more than he'd earn normally?
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1272300 wrote: Give it a good think...How many people are immediately released from detainment compared to how many people are jailed after having been detained?


That just shows that the Police attest far more people in the course of their enquiries than they charge - it is not evidence of corruption.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;1272384 wrote: That just shows that the Police attest far more people in the course of their enquiries than they charge - it is not evidence of corruption.


I think this...Bryn Mawr;1272382 wrote: Which is not to say you don't get crooked Barristers / Solicitors and that it never happens - just that the vast majority are straight and Could not justify risking it.plays into...K.Snyder;1272300 wrote: Give it a good think...How many people are immediately released from detainment compared to how many people are jailed after having been detained?


I find the conviction rate compared to the incarceration rate to be far more acceptable than not...You disagree?

Considering this, I couldn't disagree more with "the vast majority are straight"...No way I could ever see a defense attorney, with such an observation, to be straight...

It becomes a cat and mouse game and despite loads of evidence I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any moral person would feel the need to fight to their bones to release these animals

I don't get it

And then you have religious areas in the U.S. that couldn't find a jury to not crucify Jesus Christ in cases of babies dying in the hands of teenage babysitters only to find out the child died of a medical condition that makes said jurors question their own moral integrity for having rather assumed the babysitter raped an infant

It's sick

Without some sort of leeway for moral integrity in court rooms Law will not be perfect

It's why I asked, in an albeit subtle manner, if one were to prefer a judge to have more power in courtrooms than simply "The judge or the magistrates decide on what the law says and instructs the jury on that"
User avatar
Bryn Mawr
Posts: 16113
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:54 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by Bryn Mawr »

K.Snyder;1273152 wrote: I think this...plays into...

I find the conviction rate compared to the incarceration rate to be far more acceptable than not...You disagree?

Considering this, I couldn't disagree more with "the vast majority are straight"...No way I could ever see a defense attorney, with such an observation, to be straight...

It becomes a cat and mouse game and despite loads of evidence I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any moral person would feel the need to fight to their bones to release these animals

I don't get it

And then you have religious areas in the U.S. that couldn't find a jury to not crucify Jesus Christ in cases of babies dying in the hands of teenage babysitters only to find out the child died of a medical condition that makes said jurors question their own moral integrity for having rather assumed the babysitter raped an infant

It's sick

Without some sort of leeway for moral integrity in court rooms Law will not be perfect

It's why I asked, in an albeit subtle manner, if one were to prefer a judge to have more power in courtrooms than simply "The judge or the magistrates decide on what the law says and instructs the jury on that"


I think the situation is different in the US to that in the UK. Not knowing the other's worldview, I think it will be very difficult for us to discuss this meaningfully.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

Bryn Mawr;1273216 wrote: I think the situation is different in the US to that in the UK. Not knowing the other's worldview, I think it will be very difficult for us to discuss this meaningfully.


The movie "Devil's Advocate" will put into perspective my sentiment
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

Snyder, I think I asked earlier but I don't recall an answer. Are you saying there are courts which reach verdicts based solely on law decided by precedent, with no statutory legislated framework? Is that what you're describing as "common law" in this thread?

An example of such a court would help a lot.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

spot;1273232 wrote: Snyder, I think I asked earlier but I don't recall an answer. Are you saying there are courts which reach verdicts based solely on law decided by precedent, with no statutory legislated framework? Is that what you're describing as "common law" in this thread?

An example of such a court would help a lot.


Civil law (legal system)

Civil law is a legal system inspired by Roman law, the primary feature of which is that laws are written into a collection, codified, and not determined, as in common law, by judges. Conceptually, it is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, ecclesiastical, feudal, and local practices, as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism. Materially, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules. It holds legislation as the primary source of law, and the court system is usually inquisitorial, unbound by precedent, and composed of specially-trained judicial officers.Civil law (legal system) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore has validity everywhere. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is man-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.Natural law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Relative to...Natural and legal rights

Some philosophers and political scientists make a distinction between natural and legal rights.

Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative.

Blurring the lines between natural and legal rights, U.S. statesman James Madison believed that some rights, such as trial by jury, are social rights, arising neither from natural law nor from positive law but from the social contract from which a government derives its authority.Natural and legal rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"specially-trained judicial officers" is what I'd like someone to give me the potential for a negative effect related to crime because I can't see any
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

spot;1273232 wrote: Snyder, I think I asked earlier but I don't recall an answer. Are you saying there are courts which reach verdicts based solely on law decided by precedent, with no statutory legislated framework? Is that what you're describing as "common law" in this thread?

An example of such a court would help a lot.


I don't know of one specifically but what would exactly be wrong with "specially-trained judicial officers", with no precedent whatsoever?

You'd not have any need at all for parole hearings
User avatar
spot
Posts: 41336
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Brigstowe

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by spot »

K.Snyder;1273256 wrote: I don't know of one specifically but what would exactly be wrong with "specially-trained judicial officers", with no precedent whatsoever?It would need a fully codified system of law, where every prosecution was based on a written law passed by the government. The French have that sort of legal system, as far as I understand matters. The US and England don't.

It's simple to change from the one system to the other, all you need do is alter the country's Constitution. And, of course, write the Law Code.

Do you have an example of a case, at least? I still have no idea what you're looking for. The fact that the words mean different things in different countries might explain that problem. An example really would let us work from the same starting point.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

spot;1273294 wrote: Do you have an example of a case, at least? I still have no idea what you're looking for. The fact that the words mean different things in different countries might explain that problem. An example really would let us work from the same starting point.


I think my intentions are, sadly enough, "idealistic" in that I feel a codified law based primarily off of moral principles would be the most civilized form of jurisprudence ever constituted by any equally moral courtroom, as defined by the appropriate assessment of the "criminals" in question and their motives

Not one single motive is the same because one has to understand what lead to the "criminal" in question arriving at what can either be described as being "competent to stand trial" or "insane". It's these two lines that is crucial in coming to an unarguable definition of "rehabilitation". It's absolutely and logically correct that no one can be rehabilitated of specific circumstances that convinced the "criminal" in question to commit a crime that can be deemed "sane", within the context of "crime", prior to having shown carelessness, that much is true

Jurors, while appearing to be the most "reasonable" construction of a judiciary system, are not always necessarily qualified to understand the aspects of criminal psychology that lead up to a crime that is vital in coming to a reasonable sentence for the "criminals" in question. Jurors quite simply meet the convenience of a societies judiciary system.

Once a lack of appropriation is out of the picture it's much easier to go about divinely understanding in how to deal with criminals that today's society finds it equally convenient to execute

Hypothetically, one could-suggest a legal system based entirely off of the expertise of "eminent jurists" would be the most moral legal system available would anyone disagree? What would be the pros and cons of such a precedent? How could these "eminent jurists" be any different than leaving people in the hands of individuals without a care beyond missing dinner at home with the "fam" all backed by a rule of thumb suggesting no matter the means the end is set in stone?

Can one truly be rehabilitated by virtue of retribution?

I think any case involving a "criminal" stealing something will serve to have everyone understand my sentiment. Someone steals a candy bar and they get fined and yet someone steals a car worth any significant amount of money and they get "grand larceny" which is classified as a "felony"...That's horrid!Most jurisdictions have discarded the grand/petit terminology and use value to classify larcenies as felonies or misdemeanors. "Value" means the fair market value of the property at the time and place taken. Most jurisdictions also make certain larcenies felonies regardless of the value of the property taken. For example, North Carolina General Statutes Section 14 - 72 (b)(1) makes the crime of larceny a felony "without regard to value" if the larceny is (1) from the person (2) committed pursuant to certain types of breaking or enterings (3) of any explosive or incendiary device or (4) of any firearm. The modern spelling is petty larceny for the misdemeanor level.Larceny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Without a statute for these types of crimes "criminals" can be dealt with appropriately...

Someone stealing anything because they're starving should never be looked at as being criminal and statutes argues against it and I couldn't disagree more
K.Snyder
Posts: 10253
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:05 pm

Common Law vs Civil Law

Post by K.Snyder »

In rhetrospect I have a huge problem with Stare decisis (from the Latin phrase Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established") is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions.Stare decisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know all individual motives to be different than another therefore "I have a huge problem with"...Stare decisis et quieta non movere


Perhaps someone can convince me this ideology is moral at all
Post Reply

Return to “Societal Issues News”