Differences between Uk and Us Legal System
The justice system in the United States operates at the federal and state levels. At the lowest federal level is the district court or the court of first instance, after which the parties can move the district courts. State common law courts apply their respective laws and are governed by a single judge. You have the option to refer the case to the panel of the State Court of Appeals. The State Supreme Court oversees the work of the lower courts. By the 17th century, jurors had ceased to deal with clarifying the facts of the case and had the sole task of deciding whether the accused was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, while the judge was responsible for advising the jury on the relevant law. The jury system is considered an integral part of the legal system, although only 1 per cent of criminal cases are referred to a jury; The public in the UK trusts juries more than judges, judges or ministers, and the right to a jury trial is even seen as more important than the right to protest politically. Still other countries apply very different systems. In some countries, such as France, the jury and the judge sit together to determine guilt, while in others, the decision rests entirely with a judge or jury. In the United Kingdom, the use of juries is seen as a valuable control of government power and a means of enshrining laws in the community. Arguments against juries suggest that they may not have the knowledge to understand the complex problems they face and that they may be influenced by their own biases.
The judicial systems of the two countries are very similar. Minor offences and small civil claims are dealt with by special courts of first instance, which are responsible for settling such disputes. In the United States, these are almost exclusively cases before state courts. From the above discussion of inquisitorial and adversarial systems, you will have already seen that the use of judges and juries in the UK may differ from that of other countries around the world. But there may be more differences than you think. Trial before a jury of peers is an old right and tradition in the UK. In the early Middle Ages, jury trials involved 12 men in good standing who assessed the crime and took on the role of finding evidence and deciding what evidence was presented at trial. This was developed by Henry II in the 12th century and affirmed in the Magna Carta, which stated that no fines would be imposed for crimes “except by the affidavit of respected men of the neighborhood.” The other big gap between systems around the world is the gap between common law and civil law. The following map shows where everyone can be found, with civil law in blue, common law in red, religious law in yellow, and mixed systems in brown: Civil law countries – as the map shows – cover a larger part of the world`s landmass, but common law countries encompass a larger portion of the world`s population. Britain falls into the latter category. The preference for a common law system could be seen as part of the same tendency to prefer not to write things down.
On the whole, our law is not defined by law, but by case law; If you want to prove that someone committed murder, the definition of murder was established by previous cases and was only established later in a law or code. The judges then adhere to the precedents set by the higher courts. This makes the common law more flexible, as judges may be able to adapt case law to circumstances as needed, rather than having to rely on codes that may have been drafted at a time when the relevant circumstances were unimaginable. Civil law systems, on the other hand, require that everything be written into codes and laws. Want to know what defines murder? Look at the relevant law. Previous judgments do not have the power they have at common law, but are considered a guide. The result is a less flexible but more stable system that can be simpler. It is not necessary to sift through case law to find the answer to a question. All you have to do is find the relevant code or law and interpret it instead. Like the main subdivisions of the United Kingdom (i.e. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland), the states of the United States have their own laws, judicial systems and bars. In the United States, federal laws and court decisions generally take precedence over these state laws and decisions.
Powers that are not granted to the federal government are rather specifically reserved for states in the U.S. Constitution. “The current legal systems of the United States and the United Kingdom have evolved from the same common law. The two counties have similarities when it comes to procedures, presentation of evidence, and decisions. However, when the Bill of Rights was incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, some differences in the legal systems of the two countries increased. As any Briton who has ever been informed by a German policeman after trying to cross the street knows, the differences between countries are . Where systems differ in a way that really matters is the payment of attorneys` fees. The American rule is that each party pays its own lawyer.
In England, the loser pays both lawyers. Under UK law, you cannot remove a judicial conviction from your permanent record. Therefore, there is no legal or formal procedure that accepts cancellation requests. All criminal records remain in the criminal records system, although this takes a maximum of 30 years. For some minor differences between jurisdictions in the UK and the US, visit the Inside Counsel website. The difference lies in the way a study is tracked. In an adversarial system, the judge or jury is completely neutral. The judge may seek clarification, but is not involved in the search for evidence or the examination of witnesses. The prosecution and the defense each present their case to the judge and jury, and the judge`s role is to ensure fairness between the two parties. The truth in a criminal trial is established when the judge or jury decides that the accused is not guilty or is unequivocally guilty.
In civil law, it is important to weigh the probabilities. In an inquisitorial system, on the other hand, the judge plays a much more active role in the search for the truth; He or she is involved in the examination of witnesses and the preparation of evidence. There is also no difference between civil and criminal law with respect to the standard of proof required. A perceived disadvantage in an adversarial system is that if the prosecution and defense are not aligned equally (for example, if a party has access to larger resources), the outcome may not be fair. On the other hand, the inquisitorial system may be more open to prejudice. In the U.S. legal system, a judge can completely erase or seal certain criminal records. That is, after some arrests and convictions have been completely sealed or quashed, they become inaccessible. The court or prosecutor cannot even access these files once they have been fully sealed.
