2 ms·

well you can start by codifying your laws and getting rid of juries. there's different types of legal systems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal

well you can start by codifying your laws and getting rid of juries. there's different types of legal systems. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) civil law / roman law, as used in a large part of the world including Europe. (different from civil law as the term is used in the US) things are quite a lot more clear cut if you just codify (yes, exactly like code, our law books look like code in human language, precisely worded) instead of reinterpreting the law on case by case basis and some ancient writings reinterpreted to fit a modern setting (even they were made by smart folks, it's still almost religion)

sjy 10y ago
This doesn't answer the parent's point. Most cases turn on the facts, even in civil law systems. Defendants still get locked up when judges don't believe them, and judges can still get the facts wrong. Most U.S. federal law is codified, including the contempt provision that applied here (18 U.S. Code § 401). Codification does not remove the need for courts to resolve ambiguities. The constitutional right in this case is a good example: there is no explicit privilege against self-incrimination in the European Convention on Human Rights, yet the European Court of Human Rights has found that Europeans do have this right, and has explained its scope by 'reinterpreting the law on a case by case basis' [1]. [1] http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH.30-3.pdf http://cardozolawreview.com/Joomla1.5/content/30-3/ASHWORTH....