2 ms·

But what you are saying here counters what OP is replying to. "Fuzziness" has no place in a system of law. There should be a way to trace back, as you said with

But what you are saying here counters what OP is replying to. "Fuzziness" has no place in a system of law. There should be a way to trace back, as you said with case law, to find an unambiguous decision. If not, the law needs to be clarified, not left fuzzy.

ardy42 6y ago
> But what you are saying here counters what OP is replying to. "Fuzziness" has no place in a system of law. There should be a way to trace back, as you said with case law, to find an unambiguous decision. If not, the law needs to be clarified, not left fuzzy. I don't think you have a very good understanding of the US legal system. Caselaw consists of interpretations of laws made after (sometimes long after) those laws came into force. It's a reflection of the inherent ambiguity and fuzziness in any body of law. Law isn't like computer code. While there may be some philosophical appeal to the idea of a law code that's unambiguous and requires no judgement to interpret or apply, such a goal is actually impractical and undesirable.
- alharith 6y ago
  I understand the US Legal system very well. I think enough people have broken down your fuzziness point as moot at this point, but you downvote and cling to it. I know it's tough being wrong on the internet, but just the L on this one.
freejazz 6y ago
What OP was replying to is not "fuzzy". He is calling it "fuzzy" without substantiating why or how. What I am describing is the system he is claiming is fuzzy. He's basically saying "the US law is fuzzy because there are lawyers, whereas in other systems there are only judges" which really fails to understand the different systems of law in two key ways. 1) As I described, the US system is not actually fuzzy. Pretending there is a legal system that only "just applies the law" that does not have a 'reasonableness' layer is factually incorrect. It is also factually incorrect to say that the prosecutor determines whether or not the law is violated. It's obviously not true and it reflects a tremendous misunderstanding of the adversarial legal system. In this system, the differing sides argue for their interpretation and application of the law to the facts of the case. The judge, in hearing their arguments, makes determinations along a set of guidelines as to HOW THE LAW APPLIES TO THE FACTS. That is to say, the complete opposite of what this OP described. In the US system, the JUDGES APPLY THE LAW. 2) In non-adversarial systems, what the judge does is more than "just apply the law". The judge performs the roles of the adversarial sides, just within the judge's head. The judge determines, based upon his own belief (and I'm sure, some guidelines) what either side would argue, and from there, applies the law to the facts of the case to determine outcomes. This is why it is factually incorrect to suggest this system is in any way more or less fuzzy. If a system simply just "applied the law" without any regard to the debate of the factual circumstances of the case, there would be no need for JUDGMENT.
- gnopgnip 6y ago
  France does not have common law with the notion of case law setting a precedent, they have civil law.
  - freejazz 6y ago
    Right, that's the #2 scenario where all the decision-making is done by the judge. The judge doesn't check off a list. He reads the statute, considers the facts presented, and determines how best to achieve the goal of the statute. He just doesn't refer to previous cases, and considers each case uniquely. But precedent in the common law is only as binding as the facts and argumentation convinces. So that's why I'm saying the differences between these two systems are more mechanical than they are substantively different approaches where one is reasonable and the other isn't. Neither system chains themselves to the rote definition of words or statutes. In both legal systems, reasonability and judgment are used to ensure that the law is being applied appropriately.
  - raattgift 6y ago
    > [no] case law setting a precedent, they have civil law "Civil law" is too restrictive a term for what you mean, and there certainly is a direct analogue to case law precedent. Civil law ("droit civil") is simply the part of the law of France that deals with personal matters including contracts between private (non-state) entities; marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and other family matters; landlord-tenant and other private property matters. The broader private law ("droit privé") includes employer-employee law, commercial sales law (advertising, warranty, and so forth), insurance law, shipping and transport law, manufacturing law (standards and practices) and so forth. Public law ("droit public") includes criminal law ("code pénal"), constitutional law (which defines public bodies and their broad responsibilities especially with respect to human rights), and administrative law (which governs the powers of public bodies and provides recourse for adverse decisions and other private-party claims against such bodies). Both types of law are codified in regularly-updated statute, and there are some eighty extant codes. The codes are binding on all the courts, and a goal of the process of revision is to make the codes sufficiently comprehensive that they apply to practically all cases. Where codes are insufficient, the courts must of course make practical decisions anyway, and there they are bound by jurisprudence constante -- matters not yet codified should be as in accord with the code as possible, and subsequent decisions in similar circumstances should aim to be in accord, with a view to making it easy to amend the code. Appeals decisions in France do not bind all the courts below in common to the ratio of the appeals court judgment. This is the "common" part of common law: it binds all the courts within the same jurisdiction, with statute overriding other sources of law. In France, the statutory codes are the overriding source of law, but all courts are bound to aim for predictable, stable justice, even if that (seemingly paradoxically) means disagreeing with a previous judgment of a senior court. The Court of Cassation in France reviews questions of law and procedure, with the goal of ensuring that the interpretation of the law is uniform throughout France. This is somewhat like restricting itself to dealing with "circuit splits" in the United States's federal court system, but not driven by the facts of the cases in question as opposed to whether the code was applied at all, and what was done to maintain jurisprudence constante. In common law jurisdictions, typically one typically must "distinguish" a case in a lower court from a precedent set by a higher court, and hope that the distinguishing is either not appealed or survives on appeal. However, in the French system, when faced with a series of similar cases and an argument that this forms jurisprudence constante, one may still persuade the court that an exception is justifiable. The most important difference is that one decision by a higher court can trigger a requirement to distinguish in common-law systems, whereas in French law formally only the codes themselves are binding in the strict sense. Note that there are codes in many common-law jurisdictions, examples include the Criminal Code of Canada, the Uniform Commercial Code in the USA, and so forth. These consolidate into single codes what historically (and still in England & Wales; Scotland has a much more Roman law system than E&W) appears scattered across several Acts of the legislature. However, even in England & Wales statutes are updated from time to time to reflect results in the courts; most common-law jurisdictions have some form of law commission which proposes amendments (and sometimes consolidations) to the legislature to effect this in a non-partisan manner. This is almost exactly how the codes in French law and similar systems are updated over time, too. While there are surface differences between French law and Irish law (which is similar to English law for historical reasons), statute law -- the codes, in essence -- have been converging as the European Union has evolved. Consequently, I think there is an argument that the main difference between the system of (non-constitutional) law in the USA (and the several states) and the system of (non-constitutional) law in France is in the historical policy choices of the respective legislatures, and the differences in political and legal cultures. There are sharp differences between the political and legal cultures of the USA and England and Wales, or Canada, too, and these bubble up into the judiciaries rather than being driven by them.

ardy42 6y ago

> But what you are saying here counters what OP is replying to. "Fuzziness" has no place in a system of law. There should be a way to trace back, as you said with case law, to find an unambiguous decision. If not, the law needs to be clarified, not left fuzzy. I don't think you have a very good understanding of the US legal system. Caselaw consists of interpretations of laws made after (sometimes long after) those laws came into force. It's a reflection of the inherent ambiguity and fuzziness in any body of law. Law isn't like computer code. While there may be some philosophical appeal to the idea of a law code that's unambiguous and requires no judgement to interpret or apply, such a goal is actually impractical and undesirable.

alharith 6y ago
I understand the US Legal system very well. I think enough people have broken down your fuzziness point as moot at this point, but you downvote and cling to it. I know it's tough being wrong on the internet, but just the L on this one.

freejazz 6y ago

What OP was replying to is not "fuzzy". He is calling it "fuzzy" without substantiating why or how. What I am describing is the system he is claiming is fuzzy. He's basically saying "the US law is fuzzy because there are lawyers, whereas in other systems there are only judges" which really fails to understand the different systems of law in two key ways. 1) As I described, the US system is not actually fuzzy. Pretending there is a legal system that only "just applies the law" that does not have a 'reasonableness' layer is factually incorrect. It is also factually incorrect to say that the prosecutor determines whether or not the law is violated. It's obviously not true and it reflects a tremendous misunderstanding of the adversarial legal system. In this system, the differing sides argue for their interpretation and application of the law to the facts of the case. The judge, in hearing their arguments, makes determinations along a set of guidelines as to HOW THE LAW APPLIES TO THE FACTS. That is to say, the complete opposite of what this OP described. In the US system, the JUDGES APPLY THE LAW. 2) In non-adversarial systems, what the judge does is more than "just apply the law". The judge performs the roles of the adversarial sides, just within the judge's head. The judge determines, based upon his own belief (and I'm sure, some guidelines) what either side would argue, and from there, applies the law to the facts of the case to determine outcomes. This is why it is factually incorrect to suggest this system is in any way more or less fuzzy. If a system simply just "applied the law" without any regard to the debate of the factual circumstances of the case, there would be no need for JUDGMENT.

gnopgnip 6y ago
France does not have common law with the notion of case law setting a precedent, they have civil law.
- freejazz 6y ago
  Right, that's the #2 scenario where all the decision-making is done by the judge. The judge doesn't check off a list. He reads the statute, considers the facts presented, and determines how best to achieve the goal of the statute. He just doesn't refer to previous cases, and considers each case uniquely. But precedent in the common law is only as binding as the facts and argumentation convinces. So that's why I'm saying the differences between these two systems are more mechanical than they are substantively different approaches where one is reasonable and the other isn't. Neither system chains themselves to the rote definition of words or statutes. In both legal systems, reasonability and judgment are used to ensure that the law is being applied appropriately.
- raattgift 6y ago
  > [no] case law setting a precedent, they have civil law "Civil law" is too restrictive a term for what you mean, and there certainly is a direct analogue to case law precedent. Civil law ("droit civil") is simply the part of the law of France that deals with personal matters including contracts between private (non-state) entities; marriage, divorce, adoption, inheritance, and other family matters; landlord-tenant and other private property matters. The broader private law ("droit privé") includes employer-employee law, commercial sales law (advertising, warranty, and so forth), insurance law, shipping and transport law, manufacturing law (standards and practices) and so forth. Public law ("droit public") includes criminal law ("code pénal"), constitutional law (which defines public bodies and their broad responsibilities especially with respect to human rights), and administrative law (which governs the powers of public bodies and provides recourse for adverse decisions and other private-party claims against such bodies). Both types of law are codified in regularly-updated statute, and there are some eighty extant codes. The codes are binding on all the courts, and a goal of the process of revision is to make the codes sufficiently comprehensive that they apply to practically all cases. Where codes are insufficient, the courts must of course make practical decisions anyway, and there they are bound by jurisprudence constante -- matters not yet codified should be as in accord with the code as possible, and subsequent decisions in similar circumstances should aim to be in accord, with a view to making it easy to amend the code. Appeals decisions in France do not bind all the courts below in common to the ratio of the appeals court judgment. This is the "common" part of common law: it binds all the courts within the same jurisdiction, with statute overriding other sources of law. In France, the statutory codes are the overriding source of law, but all courts are bound to aim for predictable, stable justice, even if that (seemingly paradoxically) means disagreeing with a previous judgment of a senior court. The Court of Cassation in France reviews questions of law and procedure, with the goal of ensuring that the interpretation of the law is uniform throughout France. This is somewhat like restricting itself to dealing with "circuit splits" in the United States's federal court system, but not driven by the facts of the cases in question as opposed to whether the code was applied at all, and what was done to maintain jurisprudence constante. In common law jurisdictions, typically one typically must "distinguish" a case in a lower court from a precedent set by a higher court, and hope that the distinguishing is either not appealed or survives on appeal. However, in the French system, when faced with a series of similar cases and an argument that this forms jurisprudence constante, one may still persuade the court that an exception is justifiable. The most important difference is that one decision by a higher court can trigger a requirement to distinguish in common-law systems, whereas in French law formally only the codes themselves are binding in the strict sense. Note that there are codes in many common-law jurisdictions, examples include the Criminal Code of Canada, the Uniform Commercial Code in the USA, and so forth. These consolidate into single codes what historically (and still in England & Wales; Scotland has a much more Roman law system than E&W) appears scattered across several Acts of the legislature. However, even in England & Wales statutes are updated from time to time to reflect results in the courts; most common-law jurisdictions have some form of law commission which proposes amendments (and sometimes consolidations) to the legislature to effect this in a non-partisan manner. This is almost exactly how the codes in French law and similar systems are updated over time, too. While there are surface differences between French law and Irish law (which is similar to English law for historical reasons), statute law -- the codes, in essence -- have been converging as the European Union has evolved. Consequently, I think there is an argument that the main difference between the system of (non-constitutional) law in the USA (and the several states) and the system of (non-constitutional) law in France is in the historical policy choices of the respective legislatures, and the differences in political and legal cultures. There are sharp differences between the political and legal cultures of the USA and England and Wales, or Canada, too, and these bubble up into the judiciaries rather than being driven by them.