US, Israeli, and Saudi Arabian Legal Systems. Research Paper

United States, Israeli and Saudi Arabian Legal Systems
Student Name:Professor:Course Title:Date:
United States, Israeli and Saudi Arabian Legal Systems A legal system is understood as a process or procedure that is used to interpret and enforce the law. Legal systems elaborate the responsibilities and rights in various ways. The main legal systems in the world today include religious law, common law, and the civil law.  These legal systems differ in many ways. The purpose of this research paper is to analyze, compare and evaluate the differences between the legal systems of three countries. These are Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.  United States Legal System: Common Law In America today, a legal system exists for the federal government at the national level. Moreover, a separate legal system has been put in place for each of the country’s states and territories. The legal systems in America largely fall within the common law system. Even so, there are civil law influences in some states, particularly in the State of Louisiana and other jurisdictions and territories which used to be under Mexican, Spanish, or French rule.  In formal adjudications, this common law legal system is heavily dependent upon court precedent. America’s common law system, in essence, is not reliant upon some scattered statutes that are legislative decisions. It relies on precedents which are judicial decisions already made in similar cases in the past. The precedents are upheld over time through court records. The precedents are also historically documented in collections of case law commonly referred to as reports and yearbooks.  Judges in the United States therefore play a big role in shaping the country’s legal system. On the whole, this legal system functions as an adversarial system, in which there is a contest between two conflicting individuals before a judge who acts as the moderator. The facts of the case are decided on by a jury of ordinary people who do not have any legal training. Basing upon the verdict of the jury, the judges will then determine a suitable sentence.  In America’s common law legal system, judicial determinations in the previous court cases are very important to the courthouse’s resolution of the case before it, even when a statute is at issue. The body of law in common law system is usually formed by means of court decisions, as opposed to law formed by means of written legislation or statutes.  The common law system is founded upon the doctrine of judicial precedent, which is the principle under which the lower court has to follow the decisions reached by the higher court. It is not based upon statutory laws.  Therefore, if judges are trying a case of manslaughter, for example, they will look up similar cases from the past that have gone before, in order to see how the judges at the time dealt with those cases and the type of sentence that was given.This legal system began in England before being adopted in America. Even though the English common law legal system has its roots in the eleventh century, it is worth mentioning that the America’s current legal system has evolved over the last 3 and a half centuries, with judges basing their court decisions on the decisions reached by earlier judges.  America’s common law legal system does not have a basis in statute. It is instead established and developed by means of written opinions of judges delivered at trials. The judges’ opinions are binding on future decisions of lower courts within the same jurisdiction. Even so, this does not imply that America’s common law legal derives all of its laws from case law. The United States has legislative bodies which pass new legislations regularly. The judiciary then interprets and applies these legislations during trials, and the rulings would be applied in all future cases under the stare decisis doctrine, also known as the judicial precedent.  The main advantages of this legal system include the fact that it is efficient, expedient, and fair. The common law legal system is efficient in that the existence of precedents implies that the judicial process could be rather speedy because a framework in which to base a ruling is already in existence. It is an expedient legal system since basing court decisions on precedent implies that the plaintiffs have an idea of what result to expect. The common law legal system is considered as fair due to the fact that the strict following of precedents in every case implies that everyone is treated equally.        Nevertheless, the shortcomings of the common law legal system comprise the difficulties that arise when a precedent for the case before the court is not there, as well as the perpetuation of bad rulings. Once a higher court makes a bad decision, that poor decision would remain law until a higher court, or the same court, overrides it.  Courthouses are generally disinclined to override their own decisions unless it is very necessary for them to do so. For this reason, it is possible for poor court decisions to be maintained for a long period of time. This is true for bad precedents. Nevertheless, a total lack of precedent could result in a lot of problems, particularly where the court has to make new law where there was no previous law.   Israeli Legal System: Mixed SystemAlthough Israel has a Western culture, its legal system belongs to neither the civil law family nor the common law family of legal systems. Unlike the United States whose legal system falls within the common law tradition and the Saudi system which is rooted in Sharia law, Israel uses a mixed system. This is a system that includes various aspects from both the civil law and the common law. The system was originally derived from the pre State Ottoman Empire period and then later changed by English principles of common law and equity and British Mandatory government legislation, and then replaced by supreme court decisions and new independent Knesset legislation.  In Israel, the judiciary has been given extensive judicial discretion as well as power to develop case law. Just like in the American legal system, the principle of stare decisis or judicial precedent is also practiced in Israel. As per this doctrine, a decision reached by a higher courthouse would guide the decisions of lower courts. Also, the Supreme Court of Israel is not bound by its own decisions.  Unlike American courts, the courts in Israel do not utilize the jury system. The judges of the court determine all questions of fact and law. In addition, the country’s legal system follows the principle of innocent until proven guilty. At the high court of justice sits the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court enjoys a special status and influence.  The Israeli State has also retained the pre-existing law of family relations. As such, religious law, including Christian law, Islamic law, and Jewish law, is applicable as a source of law in issues that relate to divorce and marriage, and is litigated before religious courts. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that such application is subject to the Supreme Court’s supervision and to the law of the land.  In the Declaration of Independence, the nation is described as both a democracy and a Jewish State that respects human rights. While the Jewishness of Israel has not been manifested by complete application of Jewish law, it is nonetheless manifested through specific case law and legislation. The 1950 Law of Return, for instance, grants every Jewish person in the world the right to immigrate to Israel and get citizenship of the country as per the 1952 Nationality Law. Also, the 1980 Foundation Law spells out that if the court does not find an answer to a legal question by analogy, in case law, or in statutory law, the court will decide it as per the principles of equity, justice...