Hacker News Reader

>It can be 'interpreted' by the judge, who takes on the role of the feudal lord of the earlier times

The judge is separate from the prosecution (who are referred to in court as "the state" or "the government"). This is called "judicial independence".

>The persecution or the defendant can negotiate any outcome...

...provided that outcome is preferable to having the jury decide.

>Which obligates the need for lying

No, that's perjury if done under oath. Or, in the case of prosecutorial misconduct, grounds for a mistrial.

>The ENTIRE rest of the world uses the civil law system

No, it does not.

>which descended in turn from the French Revolutionary principles.

No, it's even older than that.

>It cannot be 'interpreted'

You have never been sued in France, and you have never seen the inside of a US courtroom except on TV.

>Which is also the reason why the lawyers get upper middle class salaries and income in entire rest of the world but make obscene, irrational income in the US

The average US lawyer makes less money than the average web developer in the Bay Area.

>In Europe, judges and lawyers and prosecutors function more like clerks - the law is clear and solid.

Europe, equipped with legal technology far in advance of what the Anglophone world must deal with, has eliminated ambiguity in language to such an extent that the legal profession there is now a form of bookkeeping. Soon, the Sorbonne law faculty will be replaced by Droite-GPT (which will still take the month of August off, because reasons...)

>In the rest of the world that does not happen - there is no way to negotiate down any sentence that may befall on your corporation, but most importantly, you, the perpetrator...

The Code Napoleon has eliminated corporate malfeasance in the non-english-speaking world. Quite remarkable.

> The 'Anglosaxon' term is a long-standing political science, history and diplomacy term. Its not something that can be ignored, especially because...

Well, being perhaps overly pedantic, but it should be written Anglo-Saxon, and there's a reason that it's hyphenated.

> The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law [...]

I have literally heard no one refer to it as "Anglo-Saxon" law before--it's "common law" or sometimes a formulation like "in the Anglosphere" or "English-derived law." Calling it Anglo-Saxon, in fact, would be wrong, because it's not Anglo-Saxon--it's Norman. (And, we're getting incredibly pedantic here, Anglo-Saxon rule was never feudal.) Even Wikipedia's page listing other terms for common law never suggests Anglo-Saxon, the closest being Anglo-American.

> The ENTIRE rest of the world uses the civil law system that descended from the Napoleonic law,

LOLNOPE. Actually, I think a majority of the world population might not even be on the civil law system (whether derived from Napoleonic code or not). There's a lot of Islamic law and customary law going on in several countries, especially several populous ones. Not to mention that many civil law countries never incorporated the Napoleonic code or any of its descendants.

> The persecution or the defendant can negotiate any outcome. This trait of the common law system causes all the parties to open the 'bargain' from the maximum bets that they can imagine, assuming that it will be 'negotiated down' eventually. Which obligates the need for lying and denying that was mentioned earlier - if you deny any kind of wrongdoing even when caught red handed, you have a better chance of negotiating something better than if you were honest.

Uh... I mean, by this point, it's pretty clear to me that you have at best a superficial understanding of how common law legal systems work, because this is confusing as heck, and it's muddled to the point that I'm not sure what you're trying to argue.

I think you're starting by talking about plea bargains, which is a concept that only exists for criminal prosecutions, and a quick perusal of Wikipedia suggests that some civil law countries do have facilities that are similar to plea bargains. But we're not talking about criminal prosecutions here, we're talking about civil disputes, and both civil and common law jurisdictions allow parties to settle out of court to resolve a dispute.

Long standing in what circles? I've only seen it in Russian derived or connected media, political think, and institutions. The primary source of papers using that term to refer to US law seems to be the Russian State University of Justice.

I don't think I've seen an authoritative source elsewhere use it, because it would be like pretending the Norman conquest never had an effect on legal proceedings. As if there is some unbroken historical lineage.

This is why I labeled it a buzz word, it's a phrase with a specific (negative) connotation attached to it, used by specific media, as a catch-all for describing institutions in the US.

https://euvsdisinfo.eu/what-do-the-pro-kremlin-media-mean-by...

> Long standing in what circles?

Long standing in history, long standing in diplomacy, long standing in actual freaking Louis XIV administration communique, long standing in practically everything.

No offense but just because you people have a beef with Russia at the moment and they are using the term, the rest of the world is not going to change how they speak so that you dont get offended.

> I don't think I've seen an authoritative source elsewhere use it

Obviously you are not a student of history.

> Long standing in history, long standing in diplomacy, long standing in actual freaking Louis XIV administration communique, long standing in practically everything.

That's neat, the dead are welcome to their opinions. That doesn't change where or why it's used primarily by certain parties in their English facing media.

> No offense but just because you people have a beef with Russia at the moment and they are using the term, the rest of the world is not going to change how they speak so that you dont get offended.

I never asked them to-- if that's the phrasing in their native language, then so be it. Same reason why we can call Germany the name "Germany".

But it clearly has a different meaning in English.

> Obviously you are not a student of history.

I'll admit error if you can find a source, that's not Russian, that uses it to refer to modern US law-- even if it's just a translation from another language.

The problem is I'm having a hard time finding one on my own.

> That's neat, the dead are welcome to their opinions. That doesn't change where or why it's used primarily by certain parties in their English facing media.

How does this justify removing an actual historic term from the vocabulary.

> But it clearly has a different meaning in English.

It doesnt:

> I'll admit error if you can find a source, that's not Russian

It amazes me how someone that claims any insight in the matters of law can ask for 'sources' for such a thing. It just feels crazy. Here you go:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24517581

Its not about the law, its not about the history, its the actual term used in an Anglosaxon source about how French saw the !rise of Anglosaxons! in 20th century.

This paper of the actual university of Cambridge is actually named "The Rise of the Anglo-Saxon: French Perceptions of the Anglo-American World in the Long Twentieth Century". It is the Anglosaxons using the actual scientific term to refer to the actual historic and political science concept.

> The problem is I'm having a hard time finding one on my own.

Thats amazing now. The above was the first google result for me, an avid student of history. You were unable to find anything maybe its because you dont have much interest in that direction. Or, more likely, you were totally inundated with the actual propaganda war that very Anglosaxon establishment is waging against the actual historic term just because its current enemy used it to describe, well, itself...

> How does this justify removing an actual historic term from the vocabulary.

Language mutates.

> It amazes me how someone that claims any insight in the matters of law can ask for 'sources' for such a thing. It just feels crazy. Here you go:

> https://www.jstor.org/stable/24517581

An entire article describing the: absence of its usage in scholarly contexts outside of specific cultural domains, and also simultaneously points out its usage as a ideological label.

I'll admit my error in being unable to find this, but it's not legal analysis specific, and the paper probably isn't what you were hoping for.

You probably should have picked something else.

It isn’t an especially historic term. It certainly isn’t contemporaneous to the time period people associate with the term.

It’s called “English common law” to everyone who isn’t an absolute weirdo.

The problem with writing that your company is knowingly committing a crime in an instant message to colleagues has little do with "negotiation" and everything to do with evidence, which funnily enough is taken into account in most legal systems influenced by Napoleonic codes...

It may surprised you to learn that criminals also commit crimes and lie about them in countries whose legal system is not based on common law.

Their entire statement of

> civil law system ... does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents. It cannot be 'interpreted'

betrays that they've never examined legal proceedings in either system.

Contracts apparently don't exist in civil law, and when asked to explain the differences between "Jurisprudence Constante" and "Stare Decisis", I guess "Jurisprudence Constante" means precedent doesn't exist!

I think they're confused on the differing weight and roles of case law in rendering decisions between the two systems, and over corrected.

> Contracts apparently don't exist in civil law

This does sound like insincere debate. Where does in my comments it says that contracts dont exist in civil law. It says civil law is not BASED on contracts, agreeements and precedents. The common law is.

And no, the complications that are so beautifully and 'respectably' named in the common law dont exist in civil law. The law is always clear - if something is not covered by an immediate law, it is covered by a broader law that affects those cases.

Do we have a different understanding of the word "rely"?

You didn't even use the word "BASED".

When you say:

> It does not rely on agreements, contracts, negotiations or precedents.

Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon?

They're obviously relied upon when.. something related to contracts is in dispute.

> You didn't even use the word "BASED".

What?!

> The common law derives from the medieval !Anglosaxon! feudal law, which is based on contracts, agreements, negotiations and precedents

This is the !very first! statement of the opening paragraph of my comment. Why are you saying that I have not said it. Have you not read the actual comment?

> Why would they exist conceptually if they're not relied upon?

Why would they be relied upon if they exist, even further, why would they be the basis of the actual law?

In civil law, the law always supersedes anything else, including any agreement that any party makes among themselves. The agreements, contracts that parties makes in between themselves cannot affect the law and its decrees in any way, and actually any contract itself must be made precisely as how the law outlines them to be made and what permits them to have. To put it in historic terms, in civil law contracts exist because the law says they can exist and tells precisely how will they exist and to what extent, whereas in common law the contractual agreements that the parties made among themselves all the way going back to Magna Carta are the basis of the entire body of law - with Magna Carta being a contractual agreement in itself.

...

Also, regarding the below comment of yours:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36205790

I will respond to that comment here because HN rate limits me, making any productive discussion totally infeasible, which is why I almost totally stopped participating on this platform. Seeing how it makes actual discussions impossible, I should altogether stop participating here. But here goes the reply:

> the paper probably isn't what you were hoping for.

The term exists, its an important term in history, political science, diplomacy for a very long while, the very Cambridge university uses it itself. At this point you should be aware that even you would be able to find many references using the term. So dont sweat it. The rest of the world is not going to stop using it just because you people have a beef with some country that uses it.

...

At this point, seeing that you have claimed that I said various things I have not said and also claimed that I didnt say things that are the very first things that I said, I have no other option but to conclude that you are an insincere debater. Which concludes our discussion since I will spare both of us of a potential unproductive discussion by disengaging...

> This is the !very first! statement of the opening paragraph of my comment. Why are you saying that I have not said it. Have you not read the actual comment?

> Why would they be relied upon if they exist, even further, why would they be the basis of the actual law?

I said you didn't use it in the statement describing civil law.

I didn't bother tackling "common law is based ..." because frankly if I tackled every inaccuracy in your statements, I'd be here all day.

You were opining on the merits of civil law, by describing an "ideal" model of system which doesn't exist in any of the countries you've mentioned.

You attempted to exclude principles, which even if they don't exist in the same form, that are still present in those other country's judicial apparatus-- just with different weights and state supervisory organs.

> I will respond to that comment here because HN rate limits me, making any productive discussion totally infeasible, which is why I almost totally stopped participating on this platform. Seeing how it makes actual discussions impossible, I should altogether stop participating here. But here goes the reply:

The site is actually having problems at the moment for many, including me, you're likely not being targeted specifically-- unless you're getting an explicit error indicating so.

> The term exists, its an important term in history, political science, diplomacy for a very long while, the very Cambridge university uses it itself. At this point you should be aware that even you would be able to find many references using the term. So dont sweat it. The rest of the world is not going to stop using it just because you people have a beef with some country that uses it.

They used it to describe how it goes un-used, outside of France in this specific instance, don't misrepresent the article.

> At this point, seeing that you have claimed that I said various things I have not said and also claimed that I didnt say things that are the very first things that I said, I have no other option but to conclude that you are an insincere debater. Which concludes our discussion since I will spare both of us of a potential unproductive discussion by disengaging...

Where? Don't blame me for your inability to articulate.

Nowhere in my comment it says that criminals in other countries do not lie. Or the admission of guild is not considered evidence. It clearly outlines the differences in the legal systems and how the competent criminals navigate the former. If Binance people had any experience, they would be talking by using well rounded and vague words even among each other like how any exec in the US does, and they would avoid providing any such evidence. Moreover, they would easily be able to claim ignorance and deny any wrongdoing.

I recommend you read my comment again.