A Comparative Analysis Of General Defenses In Criminal Law: Common Law Vs. Civil Law Perspectives

Afsar Ahamed. N, St. Josephs College of Law

ABSTRACT

Civil law and common law are two distinct legal systems that govern numerous jurisdictions worldwide. While civil law systems are characterized by codified statutes and an emphasis on legislative enactments, common law systems rely heavily on judicial precedent and the doctrine of stare decisis. This paper will explore the fundamental differences between civil law and common law, particularly in the context of criminal law and the role of general defenses. Through a comparative analysis, it will investigate how general defenses, such as self-defense, necessity, and insanity, are understood, interpreted, and applied within the civil law and common law frameworks. By examining legal doctrines, statutes, case law, and scholarly literature, this paper aims to shed light on the nuanced approaches to general defenses in both legal systems, highlighting the impact of historical, cultural, and institutional factors. Ultimately, it seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of general defenses in criminal proceedings within civil law and common law jurisdictions.