Page 25 - The Circle of Life
P. 25

Chapter 2


               The South African Legal System - a short overview

               I  quote  mostly in this chapter from my book  Your Worst Enemy which is about

               the way banks treats you (illegally in many cases) and it is to give you the very

               briefest of backgrounds. I cannot teach you law in one book or even ten books!
               It takes six years of study to become a lawyer and then you still know very little
               though it takes years of practise to understand  that.


               As  said  South  Africa  and  the  majority  of  African  nations  has  a  common  law

               system.  The  difference  between  Common  Law  Systems  and  Civil  Law  Systems
               are  so  blurred  that  no-one  really  knows  the  difference  anymore  but  it  comes

               down  to  the  codification  of  laws  and  principles. Common Law Systems are less
               codified  than  Civil  Law  Systems  and  depends  more  on  case  law  and  previous

               court  decisions  for  clarity  called  the  “stare  decisis  rule."  Some  say it is written
               law (Civil) versus unwritten law (Common) but is easier to understand with the

               examples below.


               Both  systems  may  have  juries  but  in  South  Africa  we  got  rid  of  juries  many
               years  ago  which  is  a  good  thing in my eyes but then I know no other system.

               Obviously you may feel the opposite and that is also fine. Many of my clients are
               horrified  with  the  lack  of  juries  and  feel  quite strong about it so you are not a

               long hair liberal for having such feelings. Each to his own I say. For myself, I am
               very  sceptical  to  allow  a  person  untrained  in  law  to  decide my fate as I doubt

               their ability to follow complex legal arguments. It takes many years of study to
               understand law and even then I have my doubts if we really understand as much

               as we say we do even if it is not rocket science. I don't like the subjectiveness of
               a jury system either. What if my face reminds them of something akin to satan?

               I  want  to  see  objectiveness  in  court  unless  the  rules  states  otherwise  as  with
               self-defence  where  the  court  tries  to  understand  subjectively  what  you  were

               thinking  at  that  stage.  There  is  one  hell  of  a  difference  whether  you  thought
               (subjective) you were in danger and if you actually were in danger (objective). It

               is the difference between  walking out of court or into a cell. That by the way is
               the question in this unhappy Pistorius incident which recently happened.




                                                                                                        24
   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30