The two systems may accomplish much the same thing, but over the years I've come to realize how much the divide between Common vs Roman law influences not only

The two systems may accomplish much the same thing, but over the years I've come to realize how much the divide between Common vs Roman law influences not only the respective legal frameworks but the political systems right down to things like personal, life philosophy. But the distinction is rarely discussed, and the situation across Europe is not helped by everyone thinking we must have a Common law system (since that's what we see on TV). It probably like discussing Arsenal vs Liverpool to try and compare the two systems; one tends to like the home team. But since you extoll the virtues of Roman law I have to submit: it is in my view afflicted by some variant of naïve realism [0], the notion that one can capture the many-faceted reality in script, and then apply it across board. There is very little room for interpretation regarding the circumstances: the rules rule. Which can lead to absurd situations in the extreme, i.e. the case where a bus driver was deemed to be in the right (followed the rules) when he dumped a 6-year old in the middle of no-where because he didn't have a ticket (example from Sweden). In that regard a Common law system is preferable in my view. But in all honesty, both systems are imperfect, and would probably benefit from some sort of blending. And yea - perhaps not so lawyer dependent. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism_(psychology...