Considering Aristotle’s contributions to the modern justice system, it is acknowledged that there are two sides to every case: the just and the unjust. As the history of justice evolved, a clear division of cases into criminal and civil categories emerged, followed by even more granular categorizations.
In terms of procedure, many systems handle cases similarly—through trials that include testimonies, witness examination, cross-examination, and then a verdict, applicable to both criminal and civil cases.
Scandinavian and, to an extent, German law, aim not solely to discern fair from unfair in civil disputes, but rather to seek a mutually acceptable resolution.
This approach is indeed revolutionary and innovative, though it may not always align with traditional notions of justice. In complex family matters, such as divorce, child custody, or alimony, which may involve intricate issues like adultery or serious crimes, finding a consensus can be challenging, if not unfeasible.
Nevertheless, courts often strive to confine these cases within the boundaries of family law, at times disregarding extraneous arguments. The German legal system, in particular, is adept at excluding considerations beyond the immediate scope, such as those related to immigration or criminal allegations. This exclusion is not due to oversight or neglect during proceedings; rather, it’s a deliberate feature of the legal framework, and this intentional creation of legal gaps is, arguably, the most troubling aspect.
“Legal Ties, Family Bonds” a book about Law, Bias and Parenthood