Your argument and answer: U.S. law, and most other modern judicial systems, rely on something called precedent. If a judge makes a ruling that creates such precedent, another judge handling a similar case cannot simply ignore it.
There was no new ruling in any of the cases Donald Trump was involved in; therefore, no new precedent was established.
When it comes to sentencing, a judge can and oftentimes does, have leeway to impose punishment as leniently or as harshly as they see fit.
If you commit a crime and are convicted, you could argue at sentencing that, since Trump received leniency, you should also receive a similarly light sentence. Unfortunately when it comes to sentencing a court is not obligated to take into consideration how other criminals were sentenced.
The very second sentence of that Wikipedia page says that common law is built on precedent.
OK, here’s a breakdown from me, a person who is not remotely a lawyer. I’ll be using the most common names for things; they might be called something different in your country.
The highest form of law is the Constitution. A Constitution is a sort of meta-law which defines what parliament can and can’t do. If a law contradicts the Constitution, it’s invalid. Because the Constitution is so important, changing it normally requires a referendum. Not every country has a Constitution; Britain is notorious for lacking one.
Below the Constitution is statute law. This is where the parliament writes a new law, which can and often does override existing law. The president (or monarch if your country really needs to get with the times) usually has the power to veto any act of parliament, but it’s vanishingly rare they will do so except in cases where the new law is unconstitutional.
Common law refers to clarifications on existing laws made by judges, who are supposed to be Lawful Neutral on such matters. For example, let’s say parliament successfully passed a law requiring people to wear hats outside. If I see my Sikh neighbour wearing a turban, I would report him to the cops for failure to wear a hat. In court, my neighbour’s lawyer argues that, based in IRS shape and function, a turban is a type of hat. The judge agrees, and rules that my neighbour did not violate the hat law, and so I need to pay all the legal fees.
Now, whenever somebody reports a Sikh for failure to wear a hat, lawyers will cite the case of Me vs My Neighbour, wherein it was determined that a turban counts as a hat. Precedent is important, because if we’re going to have laws, they are supposed to apply consistently to everybody. It’s no good if getting to wear a turban depends on the whim of the cops or the judge that day.
Parliament can, of course, change the rules by making a new law which defines ‘hat’ in such a way that does not include turbans. Under the new law, people could be prosecuted for wearing turbans without hats, if they do so after the new law comes into force.
I assumed most legal systems relied on precedent, but that’s not accurate globally. The majority of countries follow civil law systems, like France and Germany, where precedent isn’t binding in the same way.
Where I was coming from is that many of the largest and most economically influential countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and India do use precedent-based systems, which probably skewed my perception.
So yeah, globally I was wrong, but I can see why I thought that.
Your argument and answer: U.S. law, and most other modern judicial systems, rely on something called precedent. If a judge makes a ruling that creates such precedent, another judge handling a similar case cannot simply ignore it.
There was no new ruling in any of the cases Donald Trump was involved in; therefore, no new precedent was established.
When it comes to sentencing, a judge can and oftentimes does, have leeway to impose punishment as leniently or as harshly as they see fit.
If you commit a crime and are convicted, you could argue at sentencing that, since Trump received leniency, you should also receive a similarly light sentence. Unfortunately when it comes to sentencing a court is not obligated to take into consideration how other criminals were sentenced.
Citation needed. Most of the “modern” countries use civil law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
The very second sentence of that Wikipedia page says that common law is built on precedent.
OK, here’s a breakdown from me, a person who is not remotely a lawyer. I’ll be using the most common names for things; they might be called something different in your country.
The highest form of law is the Constitution. A Constitution is a sort of meta-law which defines what parliament can and can’t do. If a law contradicts the Constitution, it’s invalid. Because the Constitution is so important, changing it normally requires a referendum. Not every country has a Constitution; Britain is notorious for lacking one.
Below the Constitution is statute law. This is where the parliament writes a new law, which can and often does override existing law. The president (or monarch if your country really needs to get with the times) usually has the power to veto any act of parliament, but it’s vanishingly rare they will do so except in cases where the new law is unconstitutional.
Common law refers to clarifications on existing laws made by judges, who are supposed to be Lawful Neutral on such matters. For example, let’s say parliament successfully passed a law requiring people to wear hats outside. If I see my Sikh neighbour wearing a turban, I would report him to the cops for failure to wear a hat. In court, my neighbour’s lawyer argues that, based in IRS shape and function, a turban is a type of hat. The judge agrees, and rules that my neighbour did not violate the hat law, and so I need to pay all the legal fees.
Now, whenever somebody reports a Sikh for failure to wear a hat, lawyers will cite the case of Me vs My Neighbour, wherein it was determined that a turban counts as a hat. Precedent is important, because if we’re going to have laws, they are supposed to apply consistently to everybody. It’s no good if getting to wear a turban depends on the whim of the cops or the judge that day.
Parliament can, of course, change the rules by making a new law which defines ‘hat’ in such a way that does not include turbans. Under the new law, people could be prosecuted for wearing turbans without hats, if they do so after the new law comes into force.
You’re right, I was overgeneralizing.
I assumed most legal systems relied on precedent, but that’s not accurate globally. The majority of countries follow civil law systems, like France and Germany, where precedent isn’t binding in the same way.
Where I was coming from is that many of the largest and most economically influential countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and India do use precedent-based systems, which probably skewed my perception. So yeah, globally I was wrong, but I can see why I thought that.