Riri

That's exactly what I meant...
Thanks Stuart!!

R
"Stuart Brook" wrote in
message >
    > I think what he's driving at here Ingo is that in some parts of Europe,
    > they do not use common law - all law is codified (the so-called
    > Napoleonic code which is also used in Quebec and Louisiana) therefore a
    > lot of interpretive law is not required.

Ingo Pakleppa

On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 14:51:10 +0000, Stuart Brook wrote:

    > Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
    >
    > quoting a european ...
    >> > It is kinda like the "without reasonable doubt" gray area in the
    >> > judicial court:
    >> > a concept that the European (like me) do not have!
    >>
    >> Of course Europeans have that. That's why we need courts and judges in
    >> the first place.
    >>
    >> What is different about immigration law from criminal law is that there
    >> is no presumption of innocence. But that, too, is true on both sides of
    >> the Atlantic.
    >
    > I think what he's driving at here Ingo is that in some parts of Europe,
    > they do not use common law - all law is codified (the so-called
    > Napoleonic code which is also used in Quebec and Louisiana) therefore a
    > lot of interpretive law is not required.

I have been told of that before, although I have to admit that I never
quite figured out what the difference really is. Germany (which does use
the principles of the Napoleonic code) still relies heavily on precedents.
Maybe the difference is not so much practical, but just in philosophy?

In any case, the "without reasonable doubt" standard is something that
seems to be independent of common law vs. Napoleonic code. After all, when
it comes down to it, a judge or an INS officer still has to decide whether
a particular section of law applies to a specific case or not - and in
cases that aren't quite cut-and-dried, there would always be room for
"reasonable doubt".