In short, substantive law tells you what you can and cannot do. Procedural law determines how you have to do something. Substantive law is a type of law that governs the legal relationship between individuals or between individuals and the state. Substantive law differs from procedural law in that it defines the rights and duties of individuals. Procedural law focuses more on the rules used to enforce those rights and obligations. To explore this concept, consider the following background definition. Substantive law deals with the rights and duties of individuals. For example, substantive law dictates the type of sentence a person can receive if convicted at the end of their criminal case. Substantive law also defines the types of offences and their seriousness.
For example, substantive law is used to decide whether a crime was a hate crime, whether murder was committed in self-defence, etc. Substantive law is then used to determine the rights granted to the accused. Example: Imagine a concrete example of a case, such as a sexual harassment case, involving an employee and his or her boss to illustrate how substantive and procedural law would work together in such a case. My school taught both substantive law and jurisprudence, which I think is the best way to go. You cannot become a lawyer without knowing the substantive law. It is also an area of study that never ends, lawyers must keep up with changes in substantive law and be sufficiently versed in this area. Procedural law, on the other hand, gives the state the mechanism to enforce substantive laws against the people. Procedural law includes the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil or criminal proceedings. Procedural law deals with the method and means by which substantive law is developed and administered. In other words, substantive law deals with the merits of how the indictment is to be handled and how the facts are to be handled; while procedural law provides a step-by-step plan of action on how the case should proceed in order to achieve the desired objectives. Hence its procedural law, which makes it possible to decide whether or not the case requires legal proceedings. As an example of procedural law, Sue appears to have won her case.
But Sally`s lawyer notices a problem. The claim was not served on Sally until long after the date usually indicated. The lawyer draws the attention of the court to this point at the preliminary hearing of the parties and requests the dismissal of the action and all its submissions. The judge agreed, and Sue`s application was dismissed on due process grounds because she did not respect procedural law. Similarly, substantive law defines the claims that may be invoked in civil proceedings. Suppose that instead of killing Sue, Sally`s slap breaks her nose. Sue calls the police and files a complaint against Sally for assault and assault. She also has medical expenses and is taking legal action. This time, the prosecutor deals with the substantive criminal law on assault and assault and decides that Sally attacked and beat Sue. he files a criminal complaint against Sally. Sally is eventually convicted of assaulting and assaulting Sue.
Create a diagram or other type of graphic organizer that explains how substantive law and procedural law work together in a criminal or civil case. Substantive law grew and changed rapidly in the twentieth century when Congress and state legislatures enacted 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 numerous model codes and statutes for adoption by States. For example, these two groups drafted the UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (CCU), which regulates trade. The UCC has been adopted in whole or in large part by all states and replaces common law and divergent state laws as the authoritative source of SUBSTANTIVE COMMERCIAL LAW. A distinctive feature of modern processes is the replacement of trust in divine intervention with modern decision-making based on empirical data. The factual evidence submitted for review has replaced the probative value of supernatural signs. Eyewitness testimony replaced the oath of the accused. And the collection, review and reflection of evidence has evolved from an informal process to a disciplined arrangement governed by detailed procedures and formal rules. Keep in mind that the first known jurors to meet in criminal cases in Anglo-Saxon England were men from the local community who knew first-hand the case and/or the character of the accused. In the nineteenth century, a jury was a group that was legally excluded from any direct knowledge of the facts of the present case and could only obtain evidence examined under very complex rules and introduced through complicated procedures.
In most ordinary cases, the medieval process was a relatively informal and brief matter dealt with by the parties involved in the dispute. But the modern process is dominated by lawyers – highly qualified and well-paid professional lawyers for litigants – who must deal with the rampant intricacies of modern substantive law and practice under increasingly complex rules of evidence and procedure. Procedural law and substantive law are the two main categories of law in the dual American judicial system. In criminal justice matters, these two types of laws play different but essential roles in protecting the rights of individuals in the United States. Substantive law is an independent set of laws that decide the fate of a case. It can effectively decide the fate of the accused, whether he wins or loses, and even the amounts of compensation, etc. Procedural laws, on the other hand, do not exist independently. Therefore, procedural laws only tell us how to conduct the trial, while substantive laws have the power to offer a legal solution. Parallel movements have also taken place in other countries, but nowhere with the same intensity.
For example, European systems now seem more willing than in the past to give courts flexibility in choosing the applicable law. Although most of these systems are still based on conflict-of-law legal rules, the rules enacted in the last quarter of the twentieth century are more “flexible” than those of the previous era. For example, some of these rules base the choice of law not on a single territorial contact, but on several contacts, generally described as “strongest connection” or “closest connection”, while other rules contain clauses allowing courts to derogate from the predetermined law in appropriate circumstances according to the needs of the individual case. During law school, the question was whether we should learn substantive law or legal theory, what we call jurisprudence. It actually depends on the school you attend. Because different schools and professors tend to focus on different areas of law. Substantive law is the area of law that concerns the definition of rights and obligations. This contrasts with procedural law, which describes how these rights and obligations are applied.
To illustrate an example, laws that define different degrees of murder are substantive laws, while laws that protect the right to a speedy trial for those accused of murder are procedural laws. Substantive law and procedural law are the two main areas of law, and they are closely linked, one defining the rules of society while the other provides the framework for their application. A key question with respect to the work of paralegals is how it compares qualitatively to the same activities of lawyers. Although lawyers argue that the use of paralegals increases the risk of poor quality work, efforts to systematically compare the work of lawyers and paralawyers cannot support this assertion (Kritzer, 1998). Existing research shows that paralegals can be just as effective as lawyers in providing some legal services. Achieving effectiveness requires a combination of specific knowledge or expertise related to substantive law, the institutional process and other actors in the system. Paralegals who receive this combination can achieve a level of efficiency comparable to that of lawyers, and specialized paralegals tend to be more effective than lawyers who do not have one or more of the three basic elements of knowledge. Substantive law regulates how people should behave according to accepted social norms.
The Ten Commandments, for example, are a set of material laws. Today, substantive law defines rights and obligations in all legal proceedings.