Futures of Criminal Justice

Civil law or Continental law or Romano-Germanic law is the predominant system of law in the world. Civil law as a legal system is often compared with common law. The main difference that is usually drawn between the two systems is that common law draws abstract rules from specific cases, whereas civil law starts with abstract rules, which judges must then apply to the various cases before them. Civil law has its roots in Roman law, Canon law and the Enlightenment. The legal systems in many civil law countries are based around one or several codes of law, which set out the main principles that guide the law.

The civil law system is based on Roman law, especially the Corpus Juris Civilis of Emperor Justinian, as later developed by medieval legal scholars. The acceptance of Roman law had different characteristics in different countries. In some of them its effect resulted from legislative act, i.e. it became positive law, whereas in other ones it became accepted by way of its processing by legal theorists.

Consequently, Roman law did not completely dominate in Europe. Roman law was a secondary source that was applied only as long as local customs and local laws lacked a pertinent provision on a particular matter. However, local rules too were interpreted primarily according to Roman law (it being a common European legal tradition of sorts), resulting in its influencing the main source of law also.

A second characteristic, beyond Roman law foundations, is the extended codification of the adopted Roman law, i.e. its inclusion into the concept of codification developed especially during the 17th and 18th century, as an expression of both Natural Law and the ideas of the Enlightenment. The ideal required the creation of certainty of law, through the recording of law and through its uniformity. Therefore, the aforementioned mix of Roman law and customary and local law ceased to exist, and the road opened for law codification, which could contribute to the aims of the above-mentioned political ideal.

Another reason that contributed to codification was that the notion of the nation state, which was born during the 19th century, required the recording of the law that would be applicable to that state. Certainly, there was also reaction to the aim of law codification. The proponents of codification regarded it as conducive to certainty, unity, and systematic recording of the law; whereas its opponents claimed that codification would result in the ossification of the law. Civil versus common law

Civil law is primarily contrasted against common law, which is the legal system developed among Anglo-Saxon people, especially in Britain. The original difference is that, historically, common law was law developed by custom, beginning before there were any written laws and continuing to be applied by courts after there were written laws, too, whereas civil law developed out of the Roman law.

In later times, civil law became codified as droit coutumier or customary law that was local compilations of legal principles recognized as normative. Thus, the difference between civil law and common law lies not just in the mere fact of codification, but also in the methodological approach to codes and statutes. In civil law countries, legislation is seen as the primary source of law. By default, courts thus base their judgments on the provisions of codes and statutes, from which solutions in particular cases are to be derived. Courts thus have to reason extensively based on general rules and principles of the code, often drawing analogies from statutory provisions to fill lacunae and to achieve coherence. By contrast, in the common law system, cases are the primary source of law, while statutes are only seen as incursions into the common law and thus interpreted narrowly.

The underlying principle of separation of powers is seen somewhat differently in civil law and common law countries. In some common law countries, especially the United States, judges are seen as balancing the power of the other branches of government. By contrast, the original idea of separation of powers in France was to assign different roles to legislation and to judges, with the latter only applying the law. This translates into the fact that many civil law jurisdictions reject the formalistic notion of binding precedent.

There are other notable differences between the legal methodologies of various civil law countries. For example, it is often said that common law opinions are much longer and contain elaborate reasoning, whereas legal opinions in civil law countries are usually very short and formal in nature. There are, however, certain sociological differences. In some Civil law countries, judges are trained and promoted separately from attorneys, whereas common law judges are usually selected from accomplished and reputable attorneys. With respect to criminal procedure, certain civil law systems are based upon a variant of the inquisitorial system rather than the adversarial system. Some Civil law nations also have legislation that predates the Convention and secures the defendant the presumption of innocence.

While the presumption of innocence is present, what distinguishes the more inquisitorial system is the frequent lack of a jury of peers, which is guaranteed in many common law jurisdictions.

Civil law is a different type of law it a type of law that holds people responsible financially for any wrongdoing. In most cases, the defendant does not do any time in a prison or jail they just pay for damages. Civil court and criminal court are two different types of law criminal courts punish criminal for the crimes they commit while civil court orders for the defendants in the cases to pay for damages that they may have caused whether it is intentional or unintentional.

The good things about civil law is that any citizen with grounds for a lawsuit can sue for damages but they need to be able to prove the amount of the damages and that the defendant was the key reason for any damages that where made to who ever or what ever. One of the best known civil suits is the O.J. Simpson case where in the criminal case he was found not guilty for the death of his ex wife Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman but when the guilty verdict was read it did not cover for a civil lawsuit against him. The families of Mr. Goldman and Mrs. Simpson filed a lawsuit against O.J. Simpson because they believed that he did play a role in the deaths of their love ones. O.J. Simpson may have been found not guilty to criminal charges however when it came to the civil suit against him for the deaths he was found liable for the deaths and even though he does not have to serve any prison time he has to pay both families a substantial amount to the families for their loses.

The downfall to a civil suit is that when someone files a civil lawsuit even though they may when their case in court it does not mean that they will actually ever see the money that they sought out in the suit because if the defendant does not have any valuable assets, there is no way to pay off the debt that may have occurred with the verdict in a civil suit.

However the civil suit can make it so that if the defendant does have money eventually of does have assets of value that it can be turned over to the plaintiff as a portion of the payment. This type of situation again happened in the Simpson case any money or procedes that he receives goes to the families of the victims. O.J. Simpson just wrote a book on the murders stating the what if he did do it this is how and the money from that book will go to the families of Goldman and Simpson because of the civil lawsuits in the United States can serve justice in more ways than one.

The three scholarly civil laws in America that were researched are how did the civil rights movement change America? The immigrant rights movement: between political realism and social idealism, and Aborting women’s choices. The aborting women’s choices are an issue of post-abortion psychological stress on women is the key to the outrage women’s advocates felt upon learning of the supreme courts decision. The article is saying that the Supreme Court has the final say in were a women is able to have an abortion based on the circumstances of a women’s health being endanger.

The doubt of a women’s health to be protected is not the doctor that will have the final say but that the legislature has the final say. The anti-abortions still argue that some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life the created and sustained, furthermore it was self evident that some women might suffer “serve depression” or “loss of self-esteem” (Clift, 2007, 1pgs). The next article is from the immigration rights movement: between political realism and social idealism.

In this article, what is being said is how the overwhelming demonstrations of peaceful protests were intended to put pressure on Congress to pass a new immigration law that would give millions immigrants the right to live and work in the United States. The base of the movement made up of local church organizations, catholic and evangelical, hometown clubs from different towns, cities, and states to lead millions of people to come out for political realism (Botz, 2007, Vol. 11, Iss. 3; pg. 24, 10 pgs).

The last article that was read was on civil rights: how did the civil rights movement change America. The issue became apparent when Jimmy Carter as a young boy had a friend that was an African American. His friend was a bishop’s son and since Jimmy Carter’s father was a man of power they both had to come to a compromise when they needed to meet. The bishop would arrive in a car and stay in the automobile while Mr. Carter would meet him at the end of the lawn. This opened the gate way for change in the southern states. Blacks wanted to be treated with the same equality as the whites.

The Montgomery Bus Boycott and student sit-ins of the 1960s depend on convincing local southern whites to change minds on segregation, also non-violent and Christian based protest demonstrated hope through faith. As a result of those actions there was the civil rights act of 1964 and the voting rights act of 1965(Badger, 2007, Iss. 94; pg. 6,8 pgs). References

Badger, A. (2007, Summer 2007). Civil Rights: How did the Civil Rights movement change America?. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdweb?did=1317196861&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientld=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD Botz, D. L. (2007, Summer 2007). The Immigrant Rights Movement: Between Political Realism and Social Idealism. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdweb?did=1303460431&sid=1&Fmt=3&clientld=13118&RQT=309&VName=PQD Clift, E. (2007, August 21,). USA: Aborting Women's Choices. Retrieved September 30, 2007, from http://proquest.umi.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/pqdweb?did=1327314051&sid=1