Role Of Law In Modern Society Law Essay

Role Of Law In Modern Society Law EssayThe main role of equity in modern societies is hard to overestimate. The systems be hard to understand, the institutions argon polar and range from small to mammoth, and the number of people concerned, from para-legal to federal judge, can only be proof of its central role in society. Law and legal issues are left to faithfulness of natureyers, legal theorists and the occasional sociologist. For to the highest degree people, the law is only reluctantly confronted during those signature events in life marriage, paying taxes, immigrating.The explanation of law is closely related to the development of courtlyization. Ancient Egyptian law, 3000 BC, restricted a obliging inscribe that was probably broken into twelve books. It was based on the concept of Maat, characterized by tradition, symbolic speech, social equality and objectivity. By the 22nd century BC, the ancient Sumerian ruler Ur-Nammu had formulated the first law code, which consi sted of casuistical statements and in that law they just hadif then Around 1760 BC, King Hammurabi further developed Babylonian law, by codifying and inscribing it in stone. Hammurabi placed several copies of his law code throughout the kingdom of Babylon as steal, for the entire public to see this became known as the Codex Hammurabi. The most intact copy of these steal was discovered in the 19th century in Britain, and has since been fully transliterated and translated into various languages, including English, German, and French.Civil Law and Common lawThe terms of common law system and well-mannered law system are different and used to discriminate two distinct legal systems and glide pathes to law. The term civil law refers to jurisdictions that took over the continental system of European law resulting basically from ancient Roman law, still much accept the Germanic tradition. The term common law refers to all legal systems, which have adopt the historic English legal sys tem.The distinction to be made between the two systems is that the common law system has a certain characteristic to be case-centered and hence judge-centered, allowing scope for an optional, pragmatic approach to the particular problems that show before the courts. From one point, the law can be developed on a item-by-item basis and from an some other point the civil law system tends to be a codified body of general abstract principles that control the execute of judicial discretion.In reality, both these views are limited, with the former overemphasizing the extent to which the common law judges can impose their discretion and the latter underestimating the point to which civil law judges have the power to exercise judgment. It is possibly significance mentioning at this point that the European Court of Justice, established, in assumption, on civil law principles, is, in practice, increasingly recognizing the profit of establishing a body of case law. Even though, the European Court of Justice is not bound by the operation of the doctrine of descry deices, it still does not decide personal cases on a personal basis without reference to its previous decisions. strong vs. Procedural LawSubstantive law refers to all categories of public law and private law, including the law of contracts, real property, torts, and roughshod law.First, there is a brief definition of the two terms. When you say substantive law, it actually mansions to the written or constitutional law which governs the connection between people, or between people and the state. Procedural law is the set of rules followed when a court is interview a case so it basically dictates what will happen during a civil or criminal proceeding.Compare this with procedural law, which provides a government with the machinery to implement the rights and duties as distinct in substantive law. In laymans terms, substantive law defines how the facts in a case will be handled, as well as how a particular ca se is to be charged. As the name implies, its the substance of the case that is being handled.Only procedural laws can be applied to non-legal contexts, but substantive law cannot. Procedural law is more about how the law will be executed, while substantive law provides the legal result to a case.Summing up1. Substantive law is about the characterization of peoples rights, duties and power, while procedural law is about prescribing the form and order by which the law will be enforced.2. Substantive law defines how the details or information in a case will be handled, while procedural law defines the step-by-step sue that the case will go through.3. Substantive law cannot be applied to non-legal contexts, while only procedural law can be applied to non-legal contexts.4. Substantive law defines how the case is handled, and how a crime is to be charged, while procedural law describes the method in which a case will progress.Criminal and civil processCriminal and civil procedures are n ot similar to each other. Even if some systems, together with the English, stand for private persons to bring a criminal prosecution against another person, prosecutions are almost always in progress by the state, in order to punish the defendant. The cases are usually in different courts, and juries are not so often used in civil cases.Civil procedure is the main body of law that sets out the rules and principles that courts follow when adjudicating civil lawsuits. These rules manage how a lawsuit or case may be commenced, what type of service of process is necessary, the types of pleadings and statements of case, applications, and orders allowable in civil cases, the timing and look of depositions and discovery, the conduct of trials, the process for judgment, various available remedies, and how the courts and clerks should function.Civil procedure is central, necessary and special procedural systems even criminal procedure has tended to develop or bring out as variations on the civil procedure model. Civil law proceeding is that evidence is received and the summary record prepared by someone other than the judge who will decide the case.In civil law nations, where there is no tradition of civil trial by jury, an entirely different approach has developed. There is no such thing as a trial in our sense or no single, concentrated event. The typical civil proceeding in civil law country is actually a series of isolated meetings of and written communications between counsel and judge.CriminalOne of the most comparisons one hears made about criminal procedure in the two traditions is that the criminal procedure in the civil law tradition is called inquisitorial at the comparable time as that in the common law tradition is called accusatorial. The criminal trial is a challenge between the accusers and the accused with the judge as a referee. Usually the proceedings takes place publicly and orally and is not preceded by any official investigation or preparation of evidence.At the same period of time there are important differences between civil and criminal procedures. The most civil law system consists of separate codes of civil procedure and criminal procedure. The principle of evidence plays more important role in a criminal case if the people judging it doubt the guilt of say and have a reason for this doubt a crime cannot be proven. But in a civil case, the court and judge will pass judgment all the proof and decide what is most possible.In civil matters the parties are the plaintiff and the defendant. In criminal matters the parties are the Crown and the defendant, in civil matters the parties are the plaintiff and defendant. A prosecutor conducts the case on behalf of the Crown. In the Magistrates Court the prosecutor is a police officer while in the higher courts the theater director of Public Prosecutions conducts the prosecution. The plaintiff or prosecutor must prove their case before the court.ConclusionIn conclusion, essay explains the differences between criminal procedure and civil procedure and different legal systems.