3 ms·
In theory, civil law can still be technical or principled. It's a set of instructions used to make a decision. The interpreter then decides, maybe based on la
by basch 7y ago
In theory, civil law can still be technical or principled. It's a set of instructions used to make a decision. The interpreter then decides, maybe based on law maybe based on precedent, or a mix.
- beerandt 7y ago>>The US approach leads to more precise and consistent Technical and principled? Yes Precise? If that particular scenario has been anticipated and coded for, yes. Consistent? No
- jdsully 7y agoIf a case has been litigated in the past then you should get the same result if the facts are the same. It's the party with the case law on their side's responsibility to demonstrate past rulings that support them. If you spend time watching legal shows you'll see them use the word "precedent" a lot for this reason. Of course the facts being the same is the big "if". Jury verdicts are also not strictly bound to precedent the way judges are.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- beerandt 7y agoWhat you're talking about is a feature of common-law. I'm talking about civil law or codified jurisdictions. The ancestor comment confused the US for being a (mostly) codified system, which is why I quoted that, but it was really about describing civil law as being "precise and consistent". In hindsight I see that it's confusing...