No citations please. Respond to each post in 100 words, please add to the post d

No citations please. Respond to each post in 100 words, please add to the post don’t just type why you agree or disagree with the post. The original questions will be posted below:
Original question:
The U.S. uses a common law legal system, which means that judges use the doctrine of stare decisis when making decisions. Many countries use a different type of legal system called a civil law legal system. In a civil law legal system, courts make decisions to settle disputes just like in a common law legal system. However, those court decisions made in civil law legal systems are only binding upon the parties involved in the lawsuit. In other words, civil law legal systems do not use the doctrine of stare decisis. Which type of legal system do you feel is better, and why?
Post #1 response:
I prefer the practices of a civil law legal system. Regardless of the similarity between a current case and a previous one, they are still different cases and should be treated as such. With that being said, cases of similar substance in other courts may result in the same outcome under the doctrine of jurisprudence. A major difference that I am seeing between jurisprudence and stare decisis used in the common law legal system is that jurisprudence is a doctrine of multiple cases with a similar end result. It is likely that the courts will feel bound to reach the same result with a current case as with the previous ones due to jurisprudence constante; however, that is not always what happens. Jurisprudence is a doctrine of multiple cases to refer to whereas stare decisis is quite literally the principle of ruling on a case based on the result of a singular previous case from a higher court to create consistency in court rulings. The common law legal system may regard court cases as separate entities, but the cause of action will result in a similar outcome every time based on stare decisis regardless of additional facts or details. Stare decisis is becoming outdated, in my opinion. I would much prefer to have multiple similar rulings for advisement under jurisprudence than to have to always abide by stare decisis.
Members from an appellate court can also become politically or religiously corrupt. If a stare decisis doctrine is enforced based on those political or religious ideals, that sets the precedence for every similar court case in the future to be reflected on with those same corrupted ideals which will impact millions of lives.
Now, members from a civil law legal system can also be corrupted in their rulings, but the separation of each case will allow judges to infer their own decisions based on the facts of each one independently and decide if those case results are applicable to the current standing.
I hope all of this makes sense and I’m not just spouting nonsense.
Post #2 response:
Personally, I feel common law legal system makes more sense to help avoid people benefitting from privilege and power. Obviously we see that not to be true, but on paper having a set way of doing things and protocols for the same offenses and violations should ideally make the same outcome for each person being prosecuted for the same offense. The civil law legal system seems like it would allow a lot of gray area for people to benefit from favoritism and privilege within legal settings. For example, rich, wealthy politicians under civil law legal systems could be given much lesser punishments than a single father trying to gain custody of his kids etc. The more I type though the more I can honestly say I do not see a difference in the way each system is represented in the United States as there have been many historical cases that offer different resources and outcomes to different people. But on paper, going off of the definitions given to us, I’d have to say common law legal system offers a more streamlined approach to closing cases, but then again a very loose outline of “well we’ve done it like this before” might not be the best framework for a legal system either so maybe reform in general, across the board is our best bet. 🙂