An Example of Substantive Law

Another important difference lies in the applications of both. Procedural law is applicable in non-legal contexts, unlike substantive law. In principle, the essential content of a process is therefore underlined by substantive law, while procedural law defines its stages. In short, substantive law says what you can and cannot do. Procedural law determines how you need to do something. 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 Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins. 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.

Whether it is a criminal or civil case, the ultimate goal is to convince the judge and jury. Substantive law and procedural law are necessary to achieve this objective. Substantive law consists of written legal rules issued by the legislator that govern people`s behaviour. These rules or laws define crimes and establish punishment. They also define our rights and duties as citizens. There are elements of substantive law in criminal law and civil law. Substantive law is the area of law concerning the definition of rights and obligations. This contrasts with procedural law, which describes how these rights and obligations are applied. For example, laws that define the 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 related, as one defines the rules of society, while the other provides the framework for its application. Substantive law is the law that regulates the real original rights that have been violated, the real crime that has been committed or the real duty due – the real substance of the law.

For example, state and federal constitutions create and describe the substance of a citizen`s civil rights. Substantive civil law provides the content of a very wide range of laws, providing definitions and regulations on issues ranging from trespassing to child custody to many other areas of law. Substantive criminal laws include those that define and prohibit murder, arson, theft and other crimes. They determine the actual content of the charges that can be laid for a particular crime. Sometimes the right thing leads to harm. The company recognizes the benefits of certain actions in certain circumstances that, unfortunately, lead to harm. In such cases, the defendant may form a defence of justification. Justification-based defences leave criminal acts unpunished because they preserve significant social value or because the resulting harm is outweighed by the benefits to society. For example, if a surgeon cuts someone with a knife to remove the growth of the cancer, the act is beneficial, even if it leads to pain and scarring. In giving reasons, the defendant admits that he committed an unlawful act, such as taking the life of a person, but argues that this act was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

Sometimes the State`s view differs from that of the defendant as to whether the act was really the right thing to do. In these cases, the State lays charges, against which the defendant raises a defence of justification. 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. Substantive law deals with the rights and duties of individuals. For example, substantive law prescribes the type of sentence a person may receive if convicted at the end of his or her criminal case. Substantive law also defines the types of offences and their gravity. For example, substantive law is used to decide whether a crime was a hate crime, whether a murder was committed in self-defence, and so on. Substantive law is then used to determine the rights granted to the accused. In the United States, substantive law has been widely adopted by English common law, but procedural laws have evolved from the rights enshrined in the Constitution.

Substantive law is juxtaposed with procedural law. However, the distinction is not always clear. Federal courts have struggled to determine whether a law is substantive or procedural, as this issue often determines whether state or federal law applies in cases of diversity jurisdiction under the Erie Doctrine (which requires federal courts to apply state laws to matters of substantive law). To determine whether a law is substantial, federal courts can consider whether the law has the potential to determine the outcome of the dispute. For example, in Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, the U.S. Supreme Court, considered whether failure to comply with a state statute of limitations would significantly change the outcome of a trial and ruled that limitation periods are substantive law.

In particular, the Court noted that « the outcome of the dispute before the Federal Supreme Court should be essentially the same. what it would be if she were tried by a state court. Subsequent courts refined this analysis and focused on whether the application of federal procedural law to a question would determine the outcome given its potential impact on forum shopping and the unjust administration of laws – that is, the objectives of the Erie doctrine. In Hanna v. Plumer, the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that the federal service rules outweighed the state`s requirement of manual service for the nature of the claim, since the federal rule in question was arguably procedural and the federal service rule would not have affected the choice of ex ante judicial evaluation forum. People who commit crimes often do so with help. Substantive criminal law describes when a person can be convicted of the acts of another person. For example, the common law recognized four parties to a crime: the first-degree principal, the second-degree principal, complicity before the crime, and complicity after the crime. Many complex legal rules have been developed to compensate for the harsh treatment of most crimes as crimes punishable by death (the death penalty is justified).