I open a discussion about #law
Law in civil systems is such a weird thing. The legislative power do not have separation from the judicial one, since decide what is law and how to apply it in the courts. In common law, is the people, the lawyers and the judges that creates law. But how?
You do something, and these thing creates a controversy. Then, a lawyer will study all the precedent cases and will try to explain how your case might be solved. Is going to base their decision in the costume people and judges have created.
You, as a citizen, have the opportunity to change the law with the reasoning in a court. This court, with the help of a jury (that is a constitutional right to have one), is going to evaluate the case in the case of some statutes, created to regulate specific controversies.
Isn’t that way more democratic?
Only in specific controversies, higher courts intervene to evaluate and establish a common precedent for all other courts, but every court will have relative freedom to decide what’s fair.
Only in specific controversies, higher courts intervene to evaluate and establish a common precedent for all other courts, but every court will have relative freedom to decide what’s fair.
Law is about philosophy. What is and what is not good, creating a juridical framework that will protect your interests. It may seem in a trial two parties are contrary, but the one who is committing a crime will ask for the same the other party if was the case.
In #civil #law #system the law is created in base the interest of a political party and will be imposed towards the population. Is that democracy?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
