Why haven't more countries adopted the common law system? Like,civil codes developed independently all over the world...

Why haven't more countries adopted the common law system? Like,civil codes developed independently all over the world, why didn't common law?

Most governments like to have near-total dominance over their own laws, instead of letting pesky independent judiciaries interfere with it through their willingness to alter precedent.

>Most governments like to have near-total dominance over their own laws

More like most countries don't want judges changing laws on a whim

because it is a shit idea

Well, you have to admit, anything involving be-wigged, gender-fluid fuckwits like in op's picture, would tend to drive people away from such a system.

It's better cause if a decision is unpouplar people will bring more suits to get it overturned by some other judge instead of having to hassle with a bunch of politicians to vote for or against some shit,

The country worked under common law for almost 200 years.
Under common law a man can force fuck his wife all he wants, it's only rape if they're not married.

It's not terribly useful, at least in terms of consistency. While it's flexible, it's byzantine in its complications. It's cheaper and faster to write everything down, stick with it unless changed, and exercise cruel and inflexible justice.

>implying that's rape

>it's byzantine in its complications
What's complicated about it? Pretty straightforward desu

With civil law, you only need to read the statute. With common law, you need to read the statute and also read the case law.

And a comprehensive reading of case law can be thousands of times longer than the statute itself and involve materials that can only be found by a paid subscription to a legal research service like Westlaw or LexisNexis.

well, even stuff like our contract law is all based on case law, like there's no contracts act.

Interpretation involves a lot of documentation of past cases and rely's on the final judgement of those charged with passing judgement, who will then be a part of later cases interpretation. With a civil code there's not necessarily a need to establish anything other than the crime as it is writ on the books has been committed, then one could just pass judgement summarily if such a polity desired. Of course most modern polities won't do that, thankfully, but in any case it means they gotta write down a lot less shit.

>With common law, you need to read the statute and also read the case law.

That's why we have codification statutes, where all of the case law since the last major statute on a subject is enshrined into a new statute which puts a nice bow on everything. It leaves the judges to apply and interpret the law with the proviso that every few decades Parliament signs off on their shit and puts it all under one roof, so to speak.

In most areas only some key principles are still enshrined in case law stretching back centuries, with the majority of stuff applicable to a situation given by one major statute, e.g. Consumer Rights Act 2015, Sexual Offences Act 2003 or, most importantly, the Companies Act 2006 (which is fuckhuge).

>That's why we have codification statutes
hm, give an example of this. I can't think of a Canadian example where this occurred. Usually, parliament will pass legislation if the courts give a ruling they didn't agree with, or they'll amend a statute for that purpose.

>With a civil code there's not necessarily a need to establish anything other than the crime as it is writ on the books has been committed,
Our crimes are all codified, it's private that that is still common law. In criminal law only defences are common law

Common law-like system actually develop pretty organically. It's only natural that people tend to base their justice decisions on previous justice decisions and thus justice systems can be sustained by tradition alone. It's just that more complex societies tend to drop these and adopt systems that are more standardized, clearer and less open to intrepretation.

>more complex societies tend to drop these and adopt systems that are more standardized
The United States, UK et al re pretty complex societies. In common law countries we still have statutes, its just most of our private law is through precedent, not statutes. And criminal law police powers/defences are common law but crimes are all codfied

> And criminal law police powers/defences are common law but crimes are all codfied
That is reductive at best and simply wrong at worst, depending on how you're defining "Crimes". Not to mention that statutes concerning criminal definitions are relatively recent and heavily based on either common law setups or sometimes just flat out a bunch of lawyers getting together and making shit up (model penal code is enormously influential).

And then you have everything that goes beyond the four corners of a criminal statute. The defintions of "probable cause" to support a warrant are judicially defined, as are things like the circumstances that justify this, that or the other affirmative defense.

yeah police powers are common law like probable cause, but all crimes themselves are codified. LIke recently in Canda there was a case where a guy was charged for sexual misconduct or something because he was peeping through girls windows, but the court was like naw that's not in the statute, can't charge him with it, case dismissed.

Judicial activism only exists in common law countries, I wonder why.

That is why it is weird that they simply rolled with common law.

What's so great about common law and what do bad about codified law.
In both cases the laws are made by politicians. Both have judges to interpret and apply the laws.

Because judges have no real power in Civil Code societies? Duh.

They have the power to enforce the law, not create it like in Anglotard countries.

judge made law has created most police powers actually

Wut?

you said politicians make all laws. Most laws around police powers are judge made laws.