The Comparison of American and British Legal Systems

What was (and still is) certain is that, in many cases, British common natural law is based on very strict actors. "If legal rules were permanent, judges could non be innovators. Once the applicable rule was discovered, it must be applied, heedless of the judges' personal notions of fairness and justice." (Knight 1996 42) In part, this seemingly old-fashioned and steady dependence solely on some historical precedent was due to the number of ghostly courts, or courts hearing sacred cases. In earlier times, especially when Henry VIII form the Church of England, and later, in the 17th century, when Oliver Cromwell became Lord Protector" of Britain, "it was troublesome upon judges, who were required to change their religion as the sovereign changed." (Zane 1998 266) Of course, this religious advocacy has changed in Britain in modern times, and in the U.S. it was never a factor. Politics, rather than religion, is what got some Ameri potful judges nominate or elected- even to the Supreme Court i.e., Clarence Thomas.

Great Britain does not have a Supreme Court, in other words, a totally separate entity of government. Instead, the House of Lords is the "court of highest appeal". (Carter 2001 2) unalike America's legal system which separates state from federal courts (and legal systems including judges), Britain includes the last crimi

Friedman, natural lawrence M.: (1973) History of American Law New York: Simon & Schuster

Trial by jury is different, as well. In the U.S., there is a jury composed of one's peers, and the jurors are chosen, not by the court or by the prosecution or defense per se, but by a willingness to agree on who shall serve and who shall be eliminated (or excused).

The jury is not chosen by the Crown, or the Queen's Counsel, or any government-affiliated entity in the U.S. However, the idea of what we at a time know as a "grand jury" was truly developed by Henry II in the duodecimal century.

CITATIONS:

If there is one constant in the two systems of law is that they are evolutionary, rather than revolutionary; meaning that the sets of laws and judicial fortune seldom make great changes overnight. Not even the ill-famed Roe v. Wade, among other U.S. Supreme Court decisions, has created anything but a guide to new directions (in this case the legality of abortions). As whitethorn be pointed out, in terms of the similarities of the two legal systems in question: "The blots we see upon the law are all make by human hands and by those hands they can be taken away." (Zane 1998 428) In other words, as flock change, the law and its system may change- but, to paraphrase the Bible, the mills of the Gods comprehend slow, but they grind exceeding fine.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.