3 ms·

Can you explain what you mean by that? I know precedent law in the US doesn’t guarantee a verdict but it vastly speeds up the appeals process.

• eindiran 5y ago
  See: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law vs * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) "The civil law system is often contrasted with the common law system, which originated in medieval England, whose intellectual framework historically came from uncodified judge-made case law, and gives precedential authority to prior court decisions."
  • skywal_l 5y ago
    There are precedents in civil law too. It's just that judges have less leeway in "creating" law than in the common law systems and thus precedents are not as binding because the law is supposed to be already laid our precisely. And civil law systems are not all tuned the same way.
    • ChuckNorris89 5y ago
      >because the law is supposed to be already laid our precisely Well that's the problem right there. Some times the laws are stupid or out of date so you end up getting screwed by some unscrupulous megacorp willing to abuse said outdated laws. Sure, the right sollution is to change the laws but you're in court right NOW and the process of changing laws is slow and the lawmakers heavily influenced by lobbyists and powerful interest groups to resist changes that affect them.
      • skywal_l 5y ago
        I am not defending any system here. And the common law system has also many shortcomings, especially when judges are basically political appointees.