Social Sciences: Statutory law or non-statutory law?

Print Page | Close Window

Statutory law or non-statutory law?

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Social Sciences
Forum Discription: Discuss Sociology, Law, Economics, Psychology and other soft sciences.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19039
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 01:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Statutory law or non-statutory law?

Posted By: Kapikulu
Subject: Statutory law or non-statutory law?
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 19:26

Hi,

In today's world, we have two major systems of law around...One is the Roman-Germannic Law(named this way as the basis is Roman-Germannic laws; known as Continental European law as well), which has a statutory character. This means: the law system is set upon a group of laws which clarify rights, processes and obligations.

The other one is the common law, or Anglo-Saxon system, which the US and UK set the best examples. In this system, contrary to Contintental European system, we see the influence is over the judgments being made over decades, a case law.

There are notable differences between the styles of each other as well. Like the "jury" system in Common Law countries..

Which one do you think is better? Why?

-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli

Replies:

Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 19:49

Roman law is better than Anglo-Saxon law because, Roman system is more certain; there are determined punishments for every determined crime types, all clear. But Anglo-Saxon law is uncertain.

Roman system leans on laws, Anglo-Saxon system leans on cases.

-------------

Posted By: Kapikulu
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2007 at 20:47

Originally posted by erkut

Roman law is better than Anglo-Saxon law because, Roman system is more certain; there are determined punishments for every determined crime types, all clear. But Anglo-Saxon law is uncertain.

Roman system leans on laws, Anglo-Saxon system leans on cases.

Well, there are still acts and bills on Common Law countries, regulating some issues. Furthermore, the judges&jury have to take the previous case judgments into account in common law as well, so that the consistency is kept...

-------------
We gave up your happiness
Your hope would be enough;
we couldn't find neither;
we made up sorrows for ourselves;
we couldn't be consoled;

A Strange Orhan Veli

Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2007 at 01:08

I must say the latter. Roman law is theoretical, Common Law's emphasis on precedent is practical, its shows shows you actual worldy senarios. It is interesting to note many apprently "civil law judistrictions" have recognized the importance of a body of case law, for example the European Court of Justice.

-------------

Posted By: TheDiplomat
Date Posted: 08-May-2007 at 05:04

I also tend to go for the Common law for in life extraordinary cases might happen and these cases might require a much different interpration, judgement, and punishment

-------------
ARDA:The best Turkish diplomat ever!

Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-May-2007 at 06:05

I don't know that there is a clear distinction between common law and statutory law countries, though the difference between the legal attitudes is clear.

Statutory law exists in all the so-called 'common law' countries (which the way it is normally used nowadays would be better expressed as the 'Anglo-Saxon common law' countries, though there are and have been non-Anglo-Saxon common laws).

And there are 'common-law' precepts in most 'statutory law' countries, though they are frequently encapsulated in constitutions (as the French constitution protects the common law concept of the presumption of innocence).

It's more a question of chronology. Cultures develop case law first and then statutory law, which tends initially to consist of attempts to codify common law practices.

It's true that the increasing use of statute law is aimed at increasing legal certitude (awareness of what the law is) but that principle itself is a common law principle. It's also true that the convolutions that drafters of statutes are drive to in trying to anticipate all possibilities frequently succeed in increasing confusion, not decreasing it.

(Statutes are of course the only way of changing what the law is: the common law is permanent.)

-------------

Posted By: Dolphin
Date Posted: 03-Jul-2007 at 06:27

Common law - as civil law attempts to legislate for all eventualities and invariably leads to discrepancies. Common law does give a lot of power to the judiciary, but I believe this legal system is preferable, as long as a teleological or purposive approach is used, not just merely an historical approach.

-------------

Posted By: King John
Date Posted: 06-Aug-2008 at 22:20

I think the Common Law system is much better. The Common law is much more practical since it is based on precedent.