4 ms·
> I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine. Well, there are some fundamental differences in how we do law in the EU, compared to
by tripzilch 9y ago
> I dunno, Europeans must trust their courts a lot more than I trust mine.
Well, there are some fundamental differences in how we do law in the EU, compared to the US.
We don't do the "jury of peers" thing (and I'm still not sure if this if really true or just stories/TV but, aren't juries specifically selected to have no background in the case matter, or legal matter?). Further, it's not unheard of that the judges and lawyers have technical knowledge for technical cases, or at least read up about it. Moreso than the EU-politicians that made the ruling, anyway, hence deferring to courts to sensibly applying the rulings. There seems to be a "you need to be rich in order to get justice" sentiment that I head Americans openly admit to as the status quo, and what I get from the news. This seems to be a bit less severe in the EU (at least in the Netherlands, that I know of). Certainly, expensive lawyers do increase your chances (unfortunately), but it's not a requirement, and if the law is in fact on your side, an affordable lawyer will do, too. And in addition to that, the "if the law is in fact on your side"-part is also easier to determine beforehand and carries a lot less risk, because of the differences between Common Law (US and most English-speaking countries) and Civil Law (rest of the world, basically) legal systems. Basically it means we codify most of our laws into law-books, using a rather standardised form of "legalese". Because of this, we don't do "precedence" like in Common Law systems. Instead we have "jurisprudence", which is a similar idea, but is used by judges as a guideline in cases where reality is ambiguous with respect to the codified law, so to speak.
Now, I didn't really study law, except for a single course (crash course into IP/tech law, part of my CS curriculum) a decade ago, and stuff I read on Wikipedia. So some of the above might not be 100% accurate, and the conclusions are obviously my opinion. But even then, that's at least some reasons to place some trust in our courts :)
- danShumway 9y ago> And in addition to that, the "if the law is in fact on your side"-part is also easier to determine beforehand I do think that American courts have a problem with this, and I do wish Americans cared more about it. It's fairly standard to hear people over here talk about whether or not something is legal and say "Oh, but I'm not a lawyer, make sure you consult with one before making any decisions." That always irritates me. Our laws ostensibly exist for the common people, not lawyers. It reminds me of the stereotypical olden churches where only a few people would get to read or understand the Bible. It feels dirty.
- tomkarlo 9y agoCalifornia's constitution alone is over 100 pages, never mind thousands of pages of other legal code as well as precedents. It's not that the laws are so complex, it's that they have to cover so much it's never going to be feasible for someone not doing it professionally to be an expert on it. Folks say "you should consult with a lawyer" when the topic is something that's too obscure or marginal to be obvious to a non-lawyer... that doesn't mean the laws are overly complex, just that there are always going to be marginal situations.
- alkonaut 9y agoThis is why common law annoys me. Possible recedent from any tiny case any time? That’s sure to help only one thing: an industry of legal workers since no one can actually know the law without doing endless research. I absolutely love how our laws are relatively small, how precedent is from the Supreme Court only, and how most people don’t have any contact with lawyers in their entire life.
- tomkarlo 9y agoSorry, are you talking about the US or another country? We have elements of common law in the US code, and you can definitely have binding precedent that doesn't involve the Supreme Court. As for most folks not having any contact with lawyers... I'm not sure I've met any adult who hasn't.
- alkonaut 9y agoSorry if I was unclear, I’m talking about how US law annoys me (it does affect me despite not living in the US, e.g in terms of prices on goods from legal overhead in the US) and how I like that my non-US country has precedent from a Supreme Court and no one knows a lawyer because there almost aren’t any (probably much for that reason - law is rather simple)
- smsm42 9y ago> Our laws ostensibly exist for the common people That's how US Constitution was written (not that it helped a lot - there's still hot debate about what "abridging the freedom of speech" or "to keep and bear arms" means). But most of the other laws are about as readable to the common man as a patch against dense APL code is readable to a seven year old. You may encounter some words you think you recognize. And then there are bylaws and regulations, which most people don't even know exist and some are impossible to get without paying money (yes, really). And then in common law system there's caselaw which is court decision having the power of law. Common man has the chance of a snowball in a nuclear reactor.
- walshemj 9y agoWell some of us "europeans" and I would bet 99.9% of Americans have issues with the Napoleonic political inquisitorial based systems
- rmc 9y agoUK & Ireland still does trial by jury for a lot of trials. So it's not as straight forward as everyone in Europe/EU doing it the same