Differences between common and civil (1 Viewer)

[-Recoil-]

America uses a civil law system and it's adversial so that isn't really a difference, I mentioned that in my response just to screw anyone who used it. If you named some countries and said that it is a difference usually then I guess you're okay.

 

[gracehowden]

hated this question.... meehhh... NO MORE LEGAL!!! woohoo

 

[carlz_07]

it's definitely about the SYSTEMS of law... and that's where heaps of people will get tricked... coz if it didn't say systems then it would just be like civil and criminal and stuff...

I did the same as dezzy

 

[dwhchin]

umm.. i think everyone who's posted here so far missed out the most important things...

standard and burden of proofs.. although adversarial and inquisitorial is right... but hey, i could be wrong...

 

[SKA]

bahahaha i got 0/5 then

 

[carlz_07]

umm.. i think everyone who's posted here so far missed out the most important things...

standard and burden of proofs.. although adversarial and inquisitorial is right... but hey, i could be wrong...

isn't that criminal and civil cases? not systems of law?

because the syllabus doesn't say anything about a key question saying the difference between common and civil case law stuff (as far as I can remember) I think that it's just sticking to systems..

coz in the syllabus for law and justice when it says the types of law there's civil and criminal law as one thing.... so I think that common law incorporates criminal and civil law in it... I don't know, I'm just rambling on... I wonder if anyone understands! good luck and well done if you do!

 

[Becc]

yeah, it isn't civil law and criminal law
its the systems.
so in other words, yes it's adversary and inquisitorial.
i talked about the judges and the sides in each case
origins of each system and countries that use them.

 

[-Recoil-]

Obviously no one read my post... America - Civil and Adversial.. So it isn't the major difference.

 

[dwhchin]

im actually almost 100% certain that what i wrote was correct.. but it's not like it really matters anyways.. why bother to talk about it, we did what we could in the exam and what we thought was right.. even though i think i'm right =P but apart from that, party and stop talking about it. i shall see you guys up at byron bay if any of ya's are going.. i'll be in a big group of baulko guys. take care

 

[melsc]

Differences in Procedure, role of court personnel and origin

Adversarial (Common law system) (England, Aus , New zeland)
*Origin eccelastial law/ roman law
*Proceedure/ differing roles
- Standard of proof is BARD
- Police collect evidence and lay charges
- opposing consel tests evidence throu cross
- judge only rules on facts of law.

Inquistiorial (Civil law system)
*Origin napolnic code
*Proceedure/ differing roles
- Standard of proof is mathematical proof
- JUDGE collects evidence and lays charges
- judge questions witnesses