I'll take another layperson crack at it. Common law is focused on precedent. There is no precedent for how a case should be decided until somebody goes and fucks it up for everybody. Then there is precedent. A whole body of jurisprudence builds up which sets the bounds on what legislation can be enacted and which enforcement mechanisms are acceptable.
Under Civil law systems, precedent doesn't carry the same weight. Past jurisprudence does not restrain what the legislature can or cannot pass into law. The burden falls on the legislature to further clarify the legal code when there are edge cases, and judges (are supposed to) more-or-less interpret the law as written.
Common Law is practiced mainly in the anglo countries, while the vast majority of the world (Latin America, Mainland Europe, Asia) practices Civil law.
I'll take another layperson crack at it. Common law is focused on precedent. There is no precedent for how a case should be decided until somebody goes and fucks it up for everybody. Then there is precedent. A whole body of jurisprudence builds up which sets the bounds on what legislation can be enacted and which enforcement mechanisms are acceptable.
Under Civil law systems, precedent doesn't carry the same weight. Past jurisprudence does not restrain what the legislature can or cannot pass into law. The burden falls on the legislature to further clarify the legal code when there are edge cases, and judges (are supposed to) more-or-less interpret the law as written.
Common Law is practiced mainly in the anglo countries, while the vast majority of the world (Latin America, Mainland Europe, Asia) practices Civil law.
This in theory is supposed to mean that common law is very consistent, but in reality often leaves the legal system very arcane.