> tl;dr: unfair outcomes are more caused by local implementations than by the legal structure.

Nope. In your defense, you went into intricate details to defend common law. Which is a blunt demonstration of how this framework shapes perspectives of people. That in some detail, something can be found to demonstrate some argument. That's common law. Even that type of thinking is something that is shaped by it because it relies on not actual, written and concrete laws, but interpretations and arguments.

Moreover...

> The primary alternative system, used in many European countries, is the inquisitorial system.
Sorry, but you don't seem to have too much insight into this topic:

To start with, what is called in Europe is called civil law. Its not 'inquisitorial system' or whatever you had in mind while phrasing that.

It descends from Napoleonic code. And that descends from French Revolutionary principles.

And its not an 'alternative'. Its de facto legal system of the ENTIRE world except a number of Angloamerican countries. In fact, even the US mixes common law with civil law. Common law in pure could be found mainly in England.

Furthermore;

> A judge directs questioning to establish the facts as they see fit.

You're flat out wrong. Sorry to be telling it this bluntly but this is just too far-out to be responded to without being blunt.

Common law IS the law in which the judge plays the role of the omnipotent feudal lord and establishes 'facts'.

There is NO such thing in civil law. I repeat: There is absolutely no such thing in civil law.

In civil law, the laws are written in a clear, concise manner. All the 'facts' that can be 'established' are explicitly specified. You cannot 'establish' anything in the court as the judge, the defender or the prosecutor. There isnt room for interpretation. In that sense, civil law is much like software engineering - it has clear definitions and a process. You just cant go out of the process, and you cannot ever set a 'precedent' that will ever be able to change anything, less override the law into the future.

> I don't know what you'd call the alternatives to common-law

There are no 'alternatives'. There is the civil law which the entire world uses. There is the common law which a few countries in Anglosphere use. There isnt a world with various 'alternative' systems.

> Historically, English law did allow serfs to challenge their landlords in court. I'm pretty sure there are cases of landlords being found guilty of dereliction of noblesse oblige

A few cases in which the higher feudal lord stomping down on the lesser feudal lord for any motive do not change the nature of common law. No need to go to reddit to ask - I can firmly telly you that the majority of history has seen the serfs getting butchered or executed whenever they challenged their feudal lord. Leaving aside that no higher lord would want to establish any 'precedent' in which they could be sentenced for violating their 'noblesse oblige'.

> Serfdom was abolished in England in about the 13th century, which is also when the Magna Carta became law

That's factually wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_serfdom#Great_Brita...

Sorry, but at this point I have to disengage from this discussion since the basis that you have for this topic is way too shaky.