Joined Dec 2011
1,209 Posts | 0+
UK
English law and Roman law are the two main legal systems in the modern Western world, so which is better?
English law, in use in all English speaking countries and many others too, is fundamentally based on case law. Judges and juries make law based on precedent, independent of a legislature.
Roman law is wholly dependent on legislation, with no common law element. It very rarely bothers with juries, which are fundamental to English law.
The basic difference is that English common law is formed from the bottom up, but Roman civil law is formed from the top down. That's why the latter needs some dictator like Napoleon to come along every so often and reform it. English common law evolves naturally.
English law, in use in all English speaking countries and many others too, is fundamentally based on case law. Judges and juries make law based on precedent, independent of a legislature.
Roman law is wholly dependent on legislation, with no common law element. It very rarely bothers with juries, which are fundamental to English law.
The basic difference is that English common law is formed from the bottom up, but Roman civil law is formed from the top down. That's why the latter needs some dictator like Napoleon to come along every so often and reform it. English common law evolves naturally.
I think th Napolean comment is irrelevent of course, but the jury system has it's own significant problems. I think the Roman system, as practiced by the French, entails detailed investigation by judges of a crime. Rather than a prosecutor laying out his case to a jury, the investigator can interrogate family, business partners, the accused etc. to come to a legally supported finding. There is also a defense that is presented to the judge for his fact finding. It seems to rely on expert rather than peer judgement.
