Glad it was helpful!

Glad it helped

Yes, you are correct, this is true in most common law countries. Of course, in the United States, the jury trial plays a much larger role. The United States Constitution Article 3, as well as the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, all reference the importance of the jury trials. Most state constitutions also guarantee the right to a jury trial for most civil disputes.

Happy to help!

Natural Law indeed. Do no harm. In a Free State only crime is to cause harm or violate an agreement. Common Law is based on Natural Law, the Judge is dependent on the Jury. Actio non dator non damnificato., I.E. No harm no foul. Prohibitions are a violation of Law, save the prohibition of real injury. Freedom means no Masters, Rulers, or Kings, We elect Servants not Masters. Common law relies on precedent indeed, but the decision is made by the Jury, not the Judge. We forget our freedom, we can not defend what we do not know. The Rights in the Constitution can not be limited or amended, they stand forever as natural God given Rights. Not legal advice. -Author Unknown. . . #EffectChangeandLiveFree -Copy and Paste if you Agree-

Why would it? If corruption happens in the common law system and it is deemed lawful, other courts should then also judge it the same way. The civil law would be more flexible to rule differently from case law, but if the corruption is written in to law, then yeah it would obviously give way for corruption. In my country (civil law) affirmative action is not allowed because it is discriminatory by definition, as it assign different values to gender, religion or ethnicity. It would require that the government changed the law for it to be allowed.

Thank you. I am curious as to what is your country? If I may ask.

@@ggmtalentsdon't want to specify but I am from a Scandinavian country :) they do have very similar systems overall

@@Rotwold I am aware I lived in Germany for over a decade so yes, I can relate. Best years ever!!!

can't tell if satire

The first thing that I thought when he described Common Law is that he's had his info from pro-EU source. Role of the "Judge" in Common Law is that he is an overseer and is there ONLY to ensure the Law is upheld during proceedings. The protections that Man can only be judged by his equals, ensures a fair outcome as it easier to influence one man "The Judge" that a group of 12 random people who would be conscious of maintaining a system that is fair and just, should they ever be falsely charged with a crime, as they would want and expect a fair trail. We also have Habeas Corpus our protection from state targeting individuals and locking them up without multiple reasons explaining why that individual is the one suspected of committing that crime. They have to clearly justify the arrest and subsequent charges and if the information provided does not stand up to scrutiny the person is released. In Civil Law you can be locked up for a "reasonable amount of time" which is open to corruption as reasonable is not defined and people can be locked up for months before being charged. With individuals locked up how can they fairly access the information and help needed to prove their innocence as Civil Law places the burden on the individual to prove their innocence. In Common Law it's the opposite, where the burden is placed on those prosecuting to provide the evidence of guilt. . It's a system that protects the individual from from persecution by the state and was set up to ensure that individual freedoms and rights are protected. Notice how he fails to mention that the Common Law system means equal justice for all and does not allow for individuals to get away with crimes because of their social standing as "no man is above the Law" & "everyone is equal in the eyes of the Law" so no special treatment & no unfair treatment is tolerated. Which again is why a jury trial is the only way to protect individuals and another protection is that should one member of the Jury be completely unconvinced of guilt & explains their reasoning then not guilty must be the outcome, as staining an innocent man's character with a guilty verdict and locking up an innocent man us an incomprehensible and unthinkable act in itself. To protect the rights of every man that they may live free from tyranny is the system that common law is based on. Common Law is just, civil law is easy to become corrupted, as complete power rests in one person's hands (the Judge) which common law recognises is a system that could easily be influenced whether through financial incentives,one person could be blackmail with regards to his personal life to pass a guilty or not guilty verdict or the threat of violence could been used to sway the outcome. Which is why 12 random people of their equals is the only way for liberty. I rest my case 😉

@@hannaho3061 ? Civil Law Corpus Juris is easily corruptible and is a top down system where people at the top have all the influence & those at the bottom could be used as an "example" & given a unfair and excessive sentence to sway or threaten others from doing the same, which in itself sounds good but what if that crime was using their rights of freedom of speech to expose criminal activity within Government or what if it was for peacefully protesting? That's why Common Law is the only fair and just system.

@@ThePp12345678 I was responding to Norsemen's comment: COMMON Law, "COMMON"?? means it's familiar, everyone followed it knowingly and voluntary, because most of it is through nature for being man/women. If anything was "IMPOSED" onto people it would have been Roman Civil law with a lower case L etc etc This is wildly mistaken - without getting into centuries of ancient/medieval/ Enlightenment European history, both the common law and civil law systems were firmly imposed on constituents by Kings/Church/Statesmen (and later imposed on other countries in colonial projects). As to which system of law is more "corruptible", which I wasn't really getting in to, neither is inherently better or worse. There are strengths and weaknesses in both ways of sourcing law. There are benefits to a codified system in which laws are available and accessible - you can go to any store in France or Italy for example and literally buy the entire law in a book for 5 euros or so. Judicial law making in the common law system by stare decisis is necessarily reactive and incremental, as it requires parties with resources and facts and arguments in order for a judge to "make law". Additionally, judges are not accountable to the people so there is a strong argument that it is less democratic. Whilst this all sounds negative, I am a common law lawyer and naturally have a preference for the common law by reason of familiarity. People living under both systems are comparably happy with how justice is administered. To get to the crux of your argument - both legal systems are "top down" and leave their people vulnerable. Your example is equally true for both civil and common law systems so I think you might be mistaken as to content of the laws. There are examples of corrupt jurisdictions in both systems - look at the disaster of "democracy" in the United States currently, or civil law Scandinavia where people enjoy a high sense of personal freedom and democracy as well as an admirable criminal justice system.

@@ThePp12345678 civil law you must prove guilt as you do in common law. And everything is codified. Reasonable is defined. Locked up is based on likelyhood of escaping and not your ability to pay bale

By your summary, you state; you cannot take away the right to bare arms. People have the right to protect themselves. If governments cannot take away rights, how do we mitigate those who use weapons to cause harm?