Giving 65 points and brainlest to who ever answers plz The civil and common law traditions are two distinct legal systems that are currently used by the majority of the developed world. These two traditions share some features but differ in substantial and important ways. Using the facts gathered during your research as supporting material, evaluate the two systems, focusing on both similarities and differences. Convince your reader that the common law tradition is superior to the civil law tradition.

Submit your completed essay. 500 words.

Explanation:

Most nations today follow one of two major legal traditions: common law or civil law. The

common law tradition emerged in England during

the Middle Ages and was applied within British

colonies across continents. The civil law tradition

developed in continental Europe at the same time

and was applied in the colonies of European imperial powers such as Spain and Portugal. Civil law

was also adopted in the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries by countries formerly possessing distinctive legal traditions, such as Russia and Japan, that

sought to reform their legal systems in order to

gain economic and political power comparable to

that of Western European nation-states.

To an American familiar with the terminology

and process of our legal system, which is based on English common law, civil law systems can be unfamiliar

and confusing. Even though England had many profound cultural ties to the rest of Europe in the Middle

Ages, its legal tradition developed differently from that

of the continent for a number of historical reasons, and

one of the most fundamental ways in which they diverged was in the establishment of judicial decisions

as the basis of common law and legislative decisions as

the basis of civil law. Before looking at the history, let’s

examine briefly what this means.

Common law is generally uncodified. This

means that there is no comprehensive compilation of

legal rules and statutes. While common law does rely

on some scattered statutes, which are legislative decisions, it is largely based on precedent, meaning the judicial decisions that have already been made in similar cases. These precedents are maintained over time

through the records of the courts as well as historically

documented in collections of case law known as yearbooks and reports. The precedents to be applied in the

decision of each new case are determined by the presiding judge. As a result, judges have an enormous role

in shaping American and British law. Common law

functions as an adversarial system, a contest between

two opposing parties before a judge who moderates. A

jury of ordinary people without legal training decides

on the facts of the case. The judge then determines the

appropriate sentence based on the jury’s verdict.

Civil Law, in contrast, is codified. Countries

with civil law systems have comprehensive, continuously

updated legal codes that specify all matters capable of

being brought before a court, the applicable procedure,

and the appropriate punishment for each offense. Such

codes distinguish between different categories of law:

substantive law establishes which acts are subject to

criminal or civil prosecution, procedural law establishes

how to determine whether a particular action constitutes a criminal act, and penal law establishes the appropriate penalty. In a civil law system, the judge’s role is to

establish the facts of the case and to apply the provisions

of the applicable code. Though the judge often brings

the formal charges, investigates the matter, and decides

on the case, he or she works within a framework established by a comprehensive, codified set of laws. The

judge’s decision is consequently less crucial in shaping

civil law than the decisions of legislators and legal scholars who draft and interpret the codes.

The following sections explore the historical

roots of these differences.