3 ms·
It's a common law perspective really (writing from the UK) - laws are interpreted by judges and that forms a body of past cases which 'fill in the gaps' so to s
by OJFord 3y ago
It's a common law perspective really (writing from the UK) - laws are interpreted by judges and that forms a body of past cases which 'fill in the gaps' so to speak, and become the rule for the future. In contrast to civil law in much of Europe which attempts to codify everything, leaving nothing to interpretation. (I'm no expert - I don't know what happens when they come across a gap, the proceedings are suspended until legislators full it in I suppose?)
A US-centric perspective, stereotypically, would be like 'my Starbucks coffee is too cold, I am suing'. You can have common law without sue-happy individuals.
- anticensor 3y agoOr, sue-happy individuals without common law, such as in Latin America.
- ElFitz 3y ago> I'm no expert - I don't know what happens when they come across a gap, the proceedings are suspended until legislators full it in I suppose? No, the judges rule with what they have, based on the case’s specifics and the "legislator’s intent" underpinning existing law. Although it does not become law, their ruling can be used as precedent in later similar cases, until the legislator catches up.
- hnbad 3y agoThe difference is that precedent can guide a judge's decision, it doesn't force it. Likewise in civil law the judge isn't simply a referee, they're meant to actively investigate. While in common law lawyers get to do a big show by asking various questions, in civil law the questions are asked by the judge and the lawyers only exist to make an argument.