Quote:
Originally Posted by Detroitdad
Fair enough. We got to watch a bunch of trials at the Palais de Justice and one in Siena, Italy. Very interesting stuff. The best part is what the avocats where under their robes, which is usually shorts and t-shirts. Would have been even more interesting if we could have understood more than about 20% of what was being said.
I guess what I found interesting is that all of the American students had a preference for our system, mostly because of the reasons that you elucidated. But our professor pointed out that our system is less attractive to the French or Italians because it is less interested in establishing truth, which they is the utmost goal of the European system. At least that is their view. We take a different approach to get to the truth, but it is one that is more difficult to explain to the public.
|
John Stuart Mill said something to the effect "let truth and error grapple" and that defines our approach.
However, if a judge, who is less qualified, gets a bias, what's to cause that judge to look at other things?
The Civil Law tradition is too pinholey for me. I can't find it here in the law. No room for equity.