Substantive criminal law deals with the elements of a case to the extent that the present question may or may not be regarded as a criminal offence. For every alleged crime that has taken place, there are specific elements that must exist in order to classify it as a crime. For example, substantive criminal law would require that, for a person who can be charged with the crime of burglary, the following elements be present: A key question regarding the work of para-lawyers is how it is compared in quality to the same activities of lawyers. While lawyers argue that the use of para-lawyers increases the risk of poor quality work, efforts to systematically compare the work of lawyers and para-lawyers do not support this claim (Kritzer 1998). Existing research shows that para-lawyers can be just as effective as lawyers at providing specific legal services. Achieving effectiveness requires a combination of specific knowledge or expertise in substantive law, institutional processes and other actors in the system. Para-lawyers who receive this combination can achieve a level of efficiency comparable to that of lawyers, and specialized para-lawyers will tend to be more effective than lawyers who do not have one or more of the three basic elements of knowledge. In the United States, substantive law comes from state legislators and common law, or law based on social customs and enforced by the courts. Historically, the common law consisted of a set of laws and jurisdictions that ruled England and the American colonies before the American Revolution. Procedural law differs from substantive law in that it guides the State on how best to apply substantive law. Procedural law includes all the rules that a court will take into account when deciding how best to deal with civil or criminal proceedings. Procedural law provides a kind of step-by-step plan on how to deal with the facts of each case and how the case should proceed in order to achieve a desired goal, whether it is a trial, a settlement or another case. “Substantive Right” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/substantive%20law.
Retrieved 14 January 2022. Substantive law is an independent set of rules that decides the fate of a case. He can actually decide the fate of the negotiator, whether he wins or loses, and even the amounts of compensation, etc. Procedural laws, on the other hand, do not have an independent existence. Therefore, procedural laws only tell us how to conduct the legal process, while substantive laws have the power to offer a legal solution. Compared to procedural criminal law, substantive criminal law concerns the “substance” of the charges against the accused. Each charge consists of specific elements or actions that amount to the commission of a crime. Substantive law requires prosecutors to prove beyond any doubt that each element of the offence was committed as charged so that the accused can be convicted of that offence. The above three rules are typical of what is generally referred to as the traditional legal choice system. For much of the twentieth century, these and similar rules were followed more or less uniformly in most countries. These rules attach great importance to certainty and predictability in the choice of applicable law, leaving little room for judicial discretion.
As the above examples show, these rules do not give preference to the forum State and are in fact intended to create international or intergovernmental uniformity, that is, to make it more likely that each multi-State case will be subject to the same law, regardless of where the case is heard. The choice of applicable law does not depend on the content of the law of the participating States, but on the territorial or other contacts of those States with the present case. Once it is established that a State has predetermined contact, e.B the place of the offence, the law of that State is applied almost automatically and, with a few exceptions, regardless of its content, underlying policy or the substantive quality of the result that such application produces. The purpose of the traditional choice of law procedure is not to ensure a substantially “just” result (substantive justice), but rather to ensure the spatially appropriate application of the law (conflict justice). The laws of the State in which the lawsuit is brought determine the nature of the case and the extent to which each of these elements exists. The use of a choice of law clause, in particular in combination with a jurisdiction clause or an arbitration clause, may provide the parties with a minimum degree of foreseeability. This is a good antidote to the uncertainty created by the movements described above. However, this antidote can only work in certain cases. For example, the principle of party autonomy is not applicable in cases such as tort where the parties to the dispute are not parties to a pre-existing relationship.
Second, although this principle is recognized in most countries, it is also subject to several limitations and exceptions that vary from country to country. Thus, it remains possible that choice of law clauses may be applied in some countries but not in others, and therefore the possibility of a different outcome, depending on where the case is heard. Note: There are restrictions on the retroactive application of the new substantive law (as a law or court). This is an interesting example of substantive law and procedural law. Substantive law applies to the facts of each of Welch`s crimes and to the current laws governing the amount and penalties for those crimes. Procedural law applies to the procedures that must be followed to determine whether an appeal is well founded and whether elements of law can be applied retroactively. In addition, this is an example of the application of the Erie Doctrine, as Welch complained of being a victim of discrepancies between state and federal laws. The Erie Doctrine is a civil doctrine that provides that when a federal court attempts to decide whether to apply federal or state law to a case, it must comply with state law on substantive issues.
However, if the issue concerns procedural law, the court must apply federal law to the case. The origin of the Erie Doctrine is the landmark 1938 Supreme Court decision in the Erie Railroad Co.c. Tompkins case. In this case, the Court set aside the earlier decision in Swift v. Tyson, in which federal judges were allowed to ignore the common law decisions of their states in some cases. An example of substantive law can be found in a case involving an accused with a history of previous crimes who argued that he had been convicted too harshly because of discrepancies between state and federal law. In 2010, police broke into Gregory Welch`s home, believing a theft suspect was present. After Welch obtained his consent to search his home, the police discovered a weapon and ammunition that Welch admitted to be his. Welch was later arrested. Procedural and substantive law may be modified over time by Supreme Court decisions and constitutional interpretations.
Procedural and substantive law may vary from state to state and sometimes from county to county, so people accused of crimes should contact a certified criminal lawyer operating in their jurisdiction. Substantive law and procedural law work together, as procedural law strengthens the substantive system by providing the guidelines that must be followed in order for substantive law to be applied to actual disputes. A judge and/or jury then invokes substantive law when assessing the evidence in a case to determine the nature of the case and the appropriate way to resolve the case. Procedural law governs the conduct of judicial proceedings concerning the application of substantive law. Since the primary purpose of any judicial proceedings is to determine the truth on the basis of the best available evidence, the procedural laws of evidence govern the admissibility of evidence and the presentation and testimony of witnesses. For example, when judges confirm or annul lawyers` objections, they do so in accordance with procedural laws. The scope of substantive law grew and changed rapidly in the twentieth century, as Congress and state legislators passed laws that replaced many common law principles. In addition, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and the American Law Institute have proposed many codes and model laws that states can adopt. .