This essay will be examine how the law reflects commonly held values. Secondly also looking in depth at the other side of the argument that (the law does not reflect commonly held values).
Firstly we must establish what the law is in relation to rule of law. The rule of law seems to vary based on context and jurisdiction, but it's most important application is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with due process. In the western world, the stamp of adherence to the rule of law include a clear separation of powers, legal certainty, and the principle of equality before the law. The rule of law is central to democracy, …show more content…
The adversarial system outlines that two parties assume opposite positions in debating the guilt or innocence of an individual. In this scenario, the judge is required to have a neutral view point at the contest unfolding before him or her. The role of the judge in this arrangement is that of an umpire, making sure that the trial proceeds according to the protocol and rules of trial or due process of law and that evidence entered is done so according to established rules and guidelines. The inquisitorial method is the common practical approach in most civil law jurisdictions. In the inquisitorial method the judge is involved in the preparation of evidence along with the police and in how the various parties are to present their case at the trial. The judge questions witnesses in detail and can even call witnesses to appear while prosecution and the defence parties at this stage can ask follow up questions. The judge plays the key role in finding the truth.The judge takes on the role of prosecutor. Difference between the two methods is that there are no jury trials in an inquisitorial system and a judge can compel an accused to make statements and answer questions. This differs extremely from the common law and adversarial method were right not to take the stand in one's own …show more content…
All legal systems are value-laden - although this is sometimes not readily understood either within the legal system or the general public. The rights and duties set out by the law have their foundation in ethical approaches to decision-making, and are aimed at setting and upholding what are called 'normative standards', by which is meant the type of behaviour deemed acceptable and desirable in society. Elliott and Quinn 20152 for instances gives this example " it is not against the law to pick your nose in public, but doing so invites social disapproval." Conventions are not law according to Elliott and Quinn. However going against the grain would result being seen has uncivilised, even though no laws in the physical sense has been broken. This disapproval is enough to shun society to behave in a way that is civilised, inherently that is what the law
Firstly we must establish what the law is in relation to rule of law. The rule of law seems to vary based on context and jurisdiction, but it's most important application is the principle that governmental authority is legitimately exercised only in accordance with written, publicly disclosed laws adopted and enforced in accordance with due process. In the western world, the stamp of adherence to the rule of law include a clear separation of powers, legal certainty, and the principle of equality before the law. The rule of law is central to democracy, …show more content…
The adversarial system outlines that two parties assume opposite positions in debating the guilt or innocence of an individual. In this scenario, the judge is required to have a neutral view point at the contest unfolding before him or her. The role of the judge in this arrangement is that of an umpire, making sure that the trial proceeds according to the protocol and rules of trial or due process of law and that evidence entered is done so according to established rules and guidelines. The inquisitorial method is the common practical approach in most civil law jurisdictions. In the inquisitorial method the judge is involved in the preparation of evidence along with the police and in how the various parties are to present their case at the trial. The judge questions witnesses in detail and can even call witnesses to appear while prosecution and the defence parties at this stage can ask follow up questions. The judge plays the key role in finding the truth.The judge takes on the role of prosecutor. Difference between the two methods is that there are no jury trials in an inquisitorial system and a judge can compel an accused to make statements and answer questions. This differs extremely from the common law and adversarial method were right not to take the stand in one's own …show more content…
All legal systems are value-laden - although this is sometimes not readily understood either within the legal system or the general public. The rights and duties set out by the law have their foundation in ethical approaches to decision-making, and are aimed at setting and upholding what are called 'normative standards', by which is meant the type of behaviour deemed acceptable and desirable in society. Elliott and Quinn 20152 for instances gives this example " it is not against the law to pick your nose in public, but doing so invites social disapproval." Conventions are not law according to Elliott and Quinn. However going against the grain would result being seen has uncivilised, even though no laws in the physical sense has been broken. This disapproval is enough to shun society to behave in a way that is civilised, inherently that is what the law