What's better: common law or civil law?

What's better: common law or civil law?
>Shit tier: religious law

> image.jpg (29 KB, 610x274)
Got more pixels user?

>not having both

user... I...

user, I'm muslim and you're Christian probably. You are people who spread Universal, Worldwide aka Catholic worldview anywhere. You insist people can't just live their life and are subjected to shitton of stuff. Then why people don't have right to have Universal, Religious answer, law, codification? I mean most major countries tried everything.. So many losses, wars, crises while those people in UAE and Saudi where chilling. Why? They simply have law that influences behaviour.

Both are alright; I personally prefer Common Law, and it fits better with Anglo culture, but Civil Law is fine I guess. Picrelated for those curious of the difference.

I have civil law, but I really like common law. I dont think it would work too well in a thirdworld country but its nice. It would be more difficult to control all of the judges than the legislators, judges here are very corrupt so I trust the law more than their decisions.

you realize that the people from arabian peninsula genocided their way to spain and their spiritual brethren of the central asian plains conquered their way to vienna, right ?

guacamola ?

Good riddance Pierre, we are having pure theoretical conversation which by irony is about how theocracy and monarchy keeps your country out of trouble, crises, welcoming to foreign workers et cetera. Look at communist Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and look at KSA, UAE and Kuwait.

Yes, hello

Sharia law

So? The Greeks and Romans did it too. So did the English. That's just the way it was.

look at the hundred years war, the war of the spanish succession, the war of the roses, the whole history of imperial china, etc...

A monarchy is strong but as soon as a crack shows all the elements of unstability blow up at once.

Ariabia is currently in the priviledged position of having a geopolitical and geostrategical importance guaranteeing a relative stability, but don't discount internal factors, Saudi Arabia is having troubles with its Shia minority, Brunei is also going through troubles.

Stability doesn't exist because society itself is a source of instability.
It's like in Taoism, the yin and the yang, there is no light if there is no shadow to illuminate, and there is no shadow if there is no light to create it.

Jesus Christ this myth has been debunked hundreds of thousands of times and yet you fucking white people can't seem to understand it. Intelligence my ass

that's a rhethorical falacy

you can ask the native people to the levant and north africa what they think about that

Both are flawed in different ways.

>Common Law
Some bozo tried to melt steel beams with jet fuel, and killed someone in the process. The jury found him guilty.
Eventually, some another bozo exploded his own house with jet fuel, when trying to melt steel beams.
A third bozo tries this at home. He harms nobody, and yet the case goes to the court. But both cases above created a precedent for "you cannot melt steel beams with jet fuel" some greedy prosecutor uses to try to incriminate the third bozo. The lawyer defends he wasn't using Acme jet fuel, but Soylent Corp. jet fuel. They debate endlessly until the result is pretty much a coin toss between "guilty" or "innocent".

>Civil Law
A bozo tries to melt steel beams with jet fuel and kills someone.
A legislation regulating jet fuel spawns.
The legislation above forbids multiple legitimate cases of jet fuel usage, so the law gets an exception.
The exception allows some illegitimate uses, so it gets its own exception, recursively.
In the end, you have a huge legislature on jet fuel usages.

Well I am telling you that simple right of people to tell people how to behave goes a long way. People and society should have that right, right to tell enforce order and make everybody behave. That's yours best economic model

>Some bozo tried to melt steel beams with jet fuel, and killed someone in the process. The jury found him guilty.
>Eventually, some another bozo exploded his own house with jet fuel, when trying to melt steel beams.
>A third bozo tries this at home. He harms nobody, and yet the case goes to the court. But both cases above created a precedent for "you cannot melt steel beams with jet fuel" some greedy prosecutor uses to try to incriminate the third bozo. The lawyer defends he wasn't using Acme jet fuel, but Soylent Corp. jet fuel. They debate endlessly until the result is pretty much a coin toss between "guilty" or "innocent".
In general, most common-law jurisdictions have abolished common-law crimes other than contempt of court in practice, but you do have a point.

You can also ask Armenians, Kurds, Georgians, Balkanites and like you said, people of Levant and North africa. Now where's the catch? That you can ask them. They are alive and well and will be, unlike natives of even Europe, let alone Americas, Australia and Pacific.

>natives of the Levant
You mean Arabs? Like the Arabs that were always there?

>North Africa
We both know the French killed more and committed many more atrocities that made the skirmishes of the Arabs look like children's games

Neither.
In one case you have corrupt judges and slightly less corrupt lawyers, in the other you have corrupt lawyers and slightly less corrupt judges.

Well, they fixed the "random shit" flaw by adding Civil Law elements. In the same extent, plenty Civil Law codes bring some Common Law elements to be a bit more flexible and avoid the never-ending chain of stupidly specific laws.

In the end, both extremes are flawed, but you can get something sensible regardless.

Indeed

>We both know the French killed more and committed many more atrocities that made the skirmishes of the Arabs look like children's games

I'm off to bed, fucking kek you're delusional

>because a people still exists the genocide didn't take place

you should go and tell that to an armenian or a kabyle yourself see how it goes

Do civil law counties not have juries?

Nope, apparently they all have bench trials.

The law of Allah (swt) is superior to any man-made law

>Do civil law counties not have juries?
They do, but I think the role is different.

I think so as well, and I believe a jury verdict only needs to be reached by a majority vote in civil law jurisdictions (they have to be unanimous either way in common law)

of-course civil law..

only a monarchy would decide upon matter based on some random musings of an old royal faggot.

Get out of my fucking country.

Sharia is Mohammed made, not allah made.

better map


>civil """"LAW""""

What...?

i was talking about precedents.

>religious law

>absolute nonsense
Only if your society already reached secularism. Before that, mixing religion and law is the norm - see Leviticus for example.

>natives of Europe, the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific don't exist

uh