t trials, as statements tend to be taken in private in a series of meetings, hearings and letters. This portrays that a civil law society is more trusting than the next, though this can be argued otherwise. One may say that since there are no cross-examinations, the witness’ word is taken as the truth, and there is no need for the witness to answer to anyone else, and that shows a level of trust in the witness. But the more likely argument is that the common law system, is more thorough than the civil law system. At the same time, being thorough could mean hurting people that should not be hurt. Canada has experienced a great rise in class action suits, that is, law suits against big businesses for substantially large amounts of money . Perhaps cases like these would be dismissed if they were outrageous by a civil law judge who decided that the case was illegitimate. But then the society would face the risk of cases that were substantial being dismissed. Comparatively, societies in the present are more thorough than the ones in the past, as well as more equitable. In the past times, there was no jury to hear the case and render a judgement, there was only a judge, or in even earlier times a leader that made the decision. This shows that man has evolved into being more compassionate to his peers in society. It is fairer for the witnesses to tell their stories to a judge, and then give both the defendant and the plaintiff (through their lawyer) the right to respond to the claims. It is fairer to have to prove that a member of society is guilty to twelve people rather than one. Of course, like with anything in society, there are pitfalls. Perhaps some people in the twelve make a bad decision, and a criminal is set free. But that is not the question that is being explored here. Legal systems can in fact tell the tale of man’s evolution. Roman law saw society evolve from being something that needed some direction and governing, ...
