Common Law vs Civil Law, Legal Systems explained

[@lexanimata]

*Common Law vs Civil Law, Legal Systems explained b* y Hesham Elrafei Legal Systems, Common Law and Civil Law. The legal systems most commonly encountered in commercial dispute resolutionو are the Common Law and the Civil Law. Common Law is a system based on the idea of binding judicial precedent. It consists of the body of Law that developed over many years in England, based on court decisions and custom, as opposed to written codified Laws. Colonists imported England's common Law to America, and other Commonwealth countries. The Law originates from the legislative branch of government, and the precedents established by higher courts are binding on lower courts. The approach in common Law is adversarial, so parties contest each other to prove their cases before a judge, who moderates the process and gives judgment. On the other side, Civil Law system is a body of written laws derived from Roman Law and France's Napoleonic Code. It is based on interpreting a codified set of written laws and is adopted in most state legal systems, like Europe, South America, China, and the middle east. Parliament is the primary source of Law, and the judge's role is to establish the facts of the case, and apply the provisions of applicable codes. Trials in civil law systems are inquisitorial and fact-finding in nature, as opposed to English common law adversarial trials. The Civil Law judge plays an active role during the trial, by questioning parties, lawyers, witnesses, and experts.

[@deansbrodshaw135]

Nice properganda your vomiting out here on "Common Law" Common Law is the Law of the Common People, judged by the people and made by the people on a Jury of 12, Not by precedent or "court decisions" By the people, 12 common people judging the Facts & Law who have the Authority to either uphold the Law or Nullify the law, via "Jury Nullification" People are waking, We see your bullshit And we've had enough Power is the common people's

[@seamushopkins2591]

Civil is contract

[@DeAngeloDowning-rl3te]

0:15 .min"0:00(00:00/-00:00)

[@raakone]

And some places are hybrids/chimeras, or "bijural", if you want to be more technical. Quebec, Louisiana, and Puerto Rico, where the federal system and criminal law are all based on common law, but private civil law is civil (but they are still adversarial by nature) From what I heard, there are parts of Cameroon that are the reverse, mostly based on the French system, but "civil" cases are handled by Common Law. Also of interest, in most civil law jurisdictions (including those that are bijural, there are two types of attorneys. You have advocates, the "lawyers" most people think of when they hear "lawyer", who handle everything "contentious." And then you have notaries, who handle certain branches that are "non-contentious", including divorces that have an agreement, and probate of uncontested wills (in Quebec, the best will to make is the type done by a notary, because it's next to impossible to contest) They're also required for mortgages, and for any buying or selling of real estate. In Quebec, it's illegal for one to be both a lawyer and a notary, but in Louisiana, it's perfectly kosher.

[@stormrider1375]

"No legal system can claim to be a servant of the people if it enables those who harm the people to conceal themselves under the cover of the law and receive advantages that harm the people." - Dr. Hans Frank, "The Impact of National Socialist Thinking on the German Legal System" (1934)

[@abhasiya3269]

Thnk u for this interesting video

[@lexanimata]

Thanks 🙏

[@Remyfication]

When i see the insane justice in the US where you can walk away from crimes just due to lawyer tricks or settling with the other party, I can only praise the civil law system actually chasing accountability and truth at all cost.

[@IgnacioRobledoQuinteros]

Gran explicación, consisa y al grano.

[@lexanimata]

gracias

[@naveedwaseer6060]

GUD GOOD

[@CyberSERT]

Why are the adversarial common law cases called civil suits? Is there a link to civil law or is this a coincidence?

[@pardist]

They have a civil code in civil cases... oddly... it means even they know common law is nonsense but they love their corruption...

[@tedcrilly46]

coincidence i guess. criminality is dealt with separately from 'civil' cases. These civil cases are concerned with non-criminal disputes, such as property disputes, contract technicalities, responsibility in accidents. and other such daily disputes which don't involve malice and criminality. im not qualified but that is my understanding.

[@lexanimata]

Civil law has another meaning which means 'not criminal law" , so even under the civil law jurisdiction you have 2 sections" criminal laws and civil laws ( meaning disputes between civilians or individuals)

[@sergeistarov4895]

Не фанат перегружать систему административного права, как во многих пост советских странах. Common law могло бы закрыть часть проблем

[@abhasiya3269]

Could u plz make videos on human rights too It will b of great help

[@lexanimata]

Thanks will do

[@abhasiya3269]

Thnk u

[@Lorentari]

So.... Common law just combines the judicial and legislative branch of government, using judges chosen by the executive branch of government What could go wrong..... :)

[@godofwar-mz2bn]

das ist gut

[@jonkline709]

How many people now on probation, how many probation officers are there!? oh

[@pubguc6771]

0:19

[@JoshuaAdkins-c9n]

Beahan Pines

[@tutorenglish4739]

You show the Union Flag for English Law. This is incorrect. You should show the English flag as the English Common Law system is different from the Scottish system but the Union Flag is for all countries in the United Kingdom. Scotland has always had a separate legal system. It is nothing to do with present day nationalist politics.

[@lexanimata]

Thanks for your feedback, this is for visualization purposes to make the audience illustrate the content easily

[@gw7624]

Why do you think representing Common Law by the UK flag has something to do with 'nationalist politics'?

[@lesleyrussell8557]

@@gw7624Tell me where I mentioned anything political let alone nationalist politics which I loathe. However facts ought to be correct. The Union flag is the flag of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. England has its own flag. Furthermore my main gripe was not about the flag but the factually incorrect material where it states the UK has a common law system. There is no UK legal system as such but three separate and different systems. The Scottish system is not based on English common law. This has nothing to do with current politics. The two systems have always been separate despite the Union of the Crown and the later Union of Parliaments. Again facts matter.

[@gw7624]

@@lesleyrussell8557 Was I responding to you?

[@RobertLund-d7d]

If I undestand correctly -If a judge in France investigates and decides a person has broken the codified law , they are guilty. Without having the chance to defend themselves in a trial ?

[@skaparinn]

Well no, the verdict is always pronounced in a trial, you always have a defense and you are still considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof remains on the plaintiff. So as the defendant, what you generally want to do is argue that the evidence provided is either lacking or too inconclusive to prove that you broke the law, or that the articles of the code invoked by the plaintiff don't apply to this case. Ideally you want to provide your own counter-evidence as well of course. In the end, you don't have to prove that you are innocent, only that it cannot be proven that you are guilty. The judge determines that based on both parties' evidence and arguments.

[@RobertLund-d7d]

@@skaparinn OK. So who judges the prosecting judge? Presumably the prosecting judge is the law so clearly has the law on his side?

[@bj_cat103]

no, the prosecutor has to prove it while the lawyer's job is to collect the evidence of innocence or, if the guilt is clear, try to reduce the penalty by looking for factors that can play into such decision. But yeah, in common law, if you're guilty, your lawyer can get you out of it, in civil law, if you're guilty, you're fcked

[@RobertLund-d7d]

@@bj_cat103 also seems in civil law if your lawyer cannot prove you innocent , your f..ed. correct ? So common law=presumption of innocence. Civil law= presumption of guilt.

[@olivierdastein2604]

No. Inquiries are led by an inquiring judge, rather than by a prosecutor. It results in two important differences. The first one is that the inquiring judge doesn't need anybody else agreement to, for instance, search a house, while a prosecutor in the common law system must go to a judge and convince him that a warrant is justified in this case. This make the inquiring judge more "powerful" than a prosecutor. The second major difference works in favor of the defendant. An inquiring judge has a duty to search for evidences of both guilt and innocence. While the prosecutor has no obligation to look for exculpatory evidences. For instance, in theory at least, a prosecutor could spend two millions dollar looking for a witness for the accusation who happens to live somewhere in the Amazonian forest, and then not bother to ask any question to a potential witness for the defense who lives one block away. He would have done nothing wrong, as looking for exculpatory evidences or witnesses is the defendant (or his lawyer) job. An inquiring judge doing that would be in dereliction of duty, as his job is to collect *all* evidences pertaining to the case. Obviously, this works in favor of the defendant as the state has means that ordinary people don't have, both in money and in human ressources. In the common law system, all these ressources are at the disposal of the accusation, while in the civil law system, in theory at least, they're in the hand of an impartial judge supposed to inquire both in favor of the accusation and the defense. If the inquiring judge thinks that there are enough evidence of guilt, the case is then sent to trial. The inquiring judge's work is then over. He takes no part in the trial (except, in extremely rare cases, as a witness). He transmits to the courts all the informations and evidences he gathered and goes on to inquire on another case. I'll write a second comment for the trial part.

[@mobiusfugue2582]

"All the worst ideas in history were French" - David Starkey

[@lexanimata]

😂😂

[@anteeko]

is common law a good idea? There is a legal system similar were I live and it make it much harder tu understand what is legal or not? A civil law code seems far more clear and reliable.

[@Tzinacacihuatl]

@@anteeko the whole world except gringos, snow gringos and island gringos use civil law and there's a reason. Gringos believe they are better than anyone yet their overall quality of life and way of applying justice is pretty mediocre compared to European countries that use civil law, hence why the rest of the world is adopting that system and not the saxon system

[@anteeko]

@@Tzinacacihuatl The truth is all system are kinda "hybrid". I live in a country using "civil law" but lawyer still look at "trials/history" to interpret the law. And that's very frustrating: to understand the law you have to ask a lawyer interpretation of a judge interpretation of a legal case. W T F Just make clear and simple laws and apply it.

[@FIYOS]

I had thought that the civil law system came from the romans and not the french

[@gw7624]

The differences can be summarised by the following: In Common Law, nothing is illegal unless the law says so. In Napoleonic Law, nothing is legal unless the law says so.

[@quynhsolo1113]

In vietnam, i totally say yes

[@CraFtoRek]

This is a false and misleading generalization.

[@gw7624]

@@CraFtoRek Nope, there are a few exceptions but it is generally true.

[@heardit3115]

What, no? The difference between the two is that under common law, laws can be interpreted on, and precedence basically functions as a law itself, meaning that judges can effectively function as legislators, completely screwing the separation of powers, while civil law holds that something is only illegal once it is stated in the legislature, and judges are only to rule based of the facts of the case, and the legislation and nothing else.

[@gw7624]

@@heardit3115 What, yes? The KEY difference between the two has already been stated, namely nothing is legal under Napoleonic Law unless there is a law explicitly allowing it. The more malleable nature of Common Law does not mean that individual rights are being infringed which is what you seem to be implying.

[@Zhohan-]

I'm not going to listen to an AI

[@lundove]

BS

[@lexanimata]

What exactly is bs?

[@seamushopkins2591]

Common law. NO harm engery are lose to man x women are property ❤Common law. Maritime law contrack commers ❤

[@causticchameleon7861]

So no presumption of innocence in civil law and the judge, with all his biases, questions, fact finds and rules. Basically, judge, juror and executioner. No thank you. I’ll keep my common law.

[@lexanimata]

Thanks, I personally think civil law system is more straight forward and easier to apply, it's one clear set of law where you see it's beginning and end in contrast to common law

[@kj134]

Of course there is praesumptio innocentiae. About judges being biased… he must always justify his decision with the exact article in the law and guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is no jury (I can not understand the point of jury, I would not like to be judged by people who have no idea about the law) and there are no precedents. There are obviously a lot of differences and our two worlds don’t always understand each other😀. For me personally, civil law makes more sense and is also more just compared to the common law system. Proceedings are not so theatrical as they are in the common law and there is a lot more focus on the procedural law. Procedure is key in civil law and especially in Central Europe Kelsen’s “pure theory of law” has a lot of influence.

[@causticchameleon7861]

@@kj134 then you’ve never lived in a common law society. You should be judge by a jury of your peers. The judge is only there to mediate with the lawyers and keep the trial moving forward. I will never understand not having a jury trial. Juries made up of citizens just like me who may have the same or similar life experiences can nullify a miscarriage of Justice. With a lone judge being the jury and executioner, there is most likely no same or similar lived experience and therefore the judges conscious and unconscious bias will creep in. Roman/napoleonic law is anathema to a free society.

[@kj134]

@@causticchameleon7861 I disagree (of course I do). In the civil law there is a clear maxim; “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege praevia/scripta/certa”. How can the common people know the written law? I would not base my future on a “democratic” decision of individuals, who have not studied law. I don’t really care about similar life experiences… if something is prohibited one should be punished for the crime. All (criminal) laws clearly define the crime and the punishment. For example “if you kill someone, you shall be punished with 1-5 years in prison”. First comes the fact-finding, if it proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is the killer, then comes the condemnation based on his exact case. Does he get one year prison sentence or five years? (Here comes a slight influence of the common law… similar things should be judged similarly.). He is convicted based on the law and the exact article. The judge has very little autonomy, he can not define certain things the way he likes or feels. He is bound only to the constitution and the law. It is much more rational this way and it doesn’t allow the public to influence the decision of the court. Iura novit curia 😉

[@ronniecortex4936]

Concerning criminal branch, I think having a criminal code turns things easier to know which conducts (behaviors) are crimes.

[@jacekszczech9181]

hi Brother. My name is Jacek and I come from Poland. Last week, a uniformed corporation called the Police attacked my brother from Poland in Walsall. Ignoring all documents and explanations, they impounded his car and are threatening to lose it. We need your help, friends. The pressure we should put on this corporation should restore the right to live, breathe and use the road as a human traveler. We should act quite efficiently and we are planning a happening this weekend. Will you help?

[@joselutorres9158]

Common Law much, much better. Yeah, LEARN COMMON LAW. listen to Karl Lentz.

[@Tzinacacihuatl]

Sure, thats why US prisons are full of innocent people and still do the death sentence which is seen as a barbarian practice by the rest of the world. Y'all might be powerful -because brute force- but you're not the best at applying justice and nobody whats to be like you except the colonies you forced to.

[@DaniGiac]

Why should common law be better? It depends on the values of our society. Civil law is much better in certain situations due to its clarity, predictability, and efficiency, which means stability and most importanty fairness in legal systems. The choice between civil law and common law depends on historical, cultural, and political factors, but the Romans knew what they were doing!!

[@lexanimata]

I believe common law jurisdictions are more advanced compared to civil law jurisdictions

[@DaniGiac]

@@lexanimata the problem is not what we believe, but WHY. We should give the reasons behind our opinions.

[@darkmatter6714]

@DaniGiac - I’ll answer for @lexanimata. English Common Law is from bottom up. French Civil Law is from top down. I’ll explain: English Common Law: It starts with the premise that individuals are BORN with ALL and EVERY right possible. The judgement then is about whether YOUR right to x,y,z impedes on someone else’s right to a,b,c or vice versa. After arbitration, the judgement arrived at then sets the precedent and example for future cases. So it’s bottom up. French Civil Law: It starts with the government defining what people’s individual rights should be. The Law is then applied based on those rules. So it’s top down. Difference? In English Common Law, your rights are not defined by the government, which means you have access to freedoms which are natural, not defined by a ruling intellectual class. This is why international laws on trade, finance, commerce, human rights and fiscal practices are administered under English Common Law. It’s the only system which works for everyone across cultures and nations, because being from bottom up, it includes rights no one has even thought of yet, so it bypasses cultural differences and biases. Whereas, in the French civil law system, it only includes the rights particular to each culture, nation and the governments who thought them up. And if a situation arises that no one had thought of before (due to say changing cultures and belief systems), you’re kind of stuck.