I didn't mean to say that Anglo-Saxon countries were particularly undemocratic, but they're also clearly not shining example, and that's what confused me about Nathan's post (though I understand his point now). But honestly, when Anglo-Saxon countries do something a certain way and the entire rest of the world does the opposite, I'll give the rest of the world the benefit of doubt.
While the law can't cover every single situation, it can provide clear criteria to apply to resolve unambiguous cases, rather than relying on such shaky and always arbitrary notions such as "precedent". For example, most European penal codes set specific penalties for a given crimes, but also specify how much can be detracted or added to them in cases where extenuating/aggravating circumstances are found. Civil law systems also have jury trials for certain circumstances (the most serious crimes usually), but in general I think it's better to avoid it when the legal issues to arbitrate are particularly technical. Also, I suspect that juries on average impose harsher sentences than judges, so from a left-wing standpoint they might not be such a great thing.