4 ms·
As an aside, this for me has always been the glaring difference between continental Europe which is largely under a civil law system, and Britain, which has a c
by brigandish 7y ago
As an aside, this for me has always been the glaring difference between continental Europe which is largely under a civil law system, and Britain, which has a common law system (and hence, the US, Canada, Australia…)
The different systems are completely at odds philosophically and require a completely different attitude, which explains so much - Brexit and the antipathy of many Brits towards the EU, and the EU itself are the current exemplar of this - but pick any of the contested parts of the US constitution (like freedom of speech or right to bear arms) and you can gauge support either way by answering the question "do you understand/prefer common law or civil law?"
If you don't trust the citizenry to make decisions for themselves then paternalistic authoritarianism is your preference, and we all know where that leads.
- akimball 7y agoThere isn't a lot of contest about free speech in the US. Some, yes, but not much. The objections to getting shot are much more motivating than the objections to being spoken to or even about.
- brigandish 7y agoYou should try Europe, there's plenty of contest about it there, and with plenty of reference to the US.
- user5994461 7y agoEuropean countries have a jury system, usually reserved to criminal cases with long sentences, like a murder. Germany is the exception. Abolished jury in 1924. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial
- brigandish 7y agoWhile technically true, I wouldn't characterise that as "hav[ing] a jury system" but of those systems making use of a jury in exceptional cases or a very limited capacity. Even then I would feel it mischaracterised the system to anyone from the Anglosphere. Greece, for instance, has a jury made up of judges. That's not a jury, that's an equivocation!