Advantages Of Adversarial Legal System

The Canadian criminal justice system is often represented by the balanced scales of justice. These scales symbolize the need for the law to be viewed objectively in order to ensure a fair determination of innocence. Ideally, the criminal justice system should incorporate the values of the scales of justice to control crime and impose penalties on those who violate the law (Jordan, 2014). When dealing with crime, this system mainly uses methods of retributive justice in order to achieve its goals. However, despite justice being supposedly impartial, there is an overwhelming amount of injustice in all stages of the criminal justice process, from the charging of the individuals in court to their sentence in prison (Jordan, 2014). To combat this

The justice system is best known as a pursuit for the truth. It is managed by humans so, it is inevitable not to make errors such as ones that will lead an innocent to be wrongfully convicted. Such a scenario is the David Milgaard case where he supposedly raped and murdered a woman named Gail Miller but really, the foundations of justice were tampered with. The Canadian justice system failed terribly, dismissed millions of dollars and banished the citizens certainty in the system. Most importantly, this even diminished 20 years of a man’s life.

There are higher courts assuring that the judges follow the law at all times. The Canadian Charter of rights gives us our rights and freedoms so people will have their rights protected while in court. A part of democracy is everyone having their rights and this advantage of an independent justice system ensures citizens that they will have them. The rights of the people need to be protected and with higher courts ensuring that they are creating an equal and secure justice system. People will not be afraid to go to court or unsure if their rights apply during the trial. The promise of rights and freedoms is not a threat to democracy, especially if it is helpful and provides for each citizen across Canada. In fact, it also forces judges to be under a law since they are people too. They are not the law, they just enforce it and this rule guarantees that a judge cannot just do whatever they feel like doing and give out unfair sentences or wrong decisions. This provides Canada with a democracy and no threat towards

The Criminal Justice System has many components that make it up. There are many differences and similarities between Canada and America like the culture, religion, and governments. Some of the main differences and similarities being the Criminal Justice System. The Criminal Justice System is the law that is related to arresting, sentencing and punishing people if found guilty with jail time, probation, or community service. In this research paper, I will be stating some of the main differences and similarities between the Canadian and American Judicial System.

The criminal trial process aims to provide justice for all those involved, while it succeeds in the majority of cases, it effectiveness is influenced and reduced by certain factors. These include the legal representation involved in a case and the availability of legal aid, the capacity of the jury assessing the trial, the credibility of scientific evidence and the impact of social media on the trial process. Due to such flaws the criminal trial process is not always an effective means of achieving justice.

Moving from system to another in such a drastic way would not benefit society, but as it is coming more and more plainly to see the adversarial system is no longer working to stand in several courts and importantly the victim/survivor. Taking a stance similar to the one the Family Court of Australia has taken could be extremely beneficial for the victim/survivor as it has shown to bring pressure of the parents and children in Family Court disputes. Another example of the inquisitorial system slow but needed integration in Australia law is the Victorian Coroner’s Court. These integrations show a great start in approving our existing law practices. The inquisitorial system would allow the Rule of Law to thrive in Australia. With victims/survivors having more of control of their trails a better system of evidence sharing it would see the say ‘the whole truth and nothing but the truth’ actually be corrected rather than the truth as is needed to best serve their

Introduction: While most people consider the system as an adversarial process, many cases are settled in an informal pattern of cooperation between the major actors in the justice process. (The prosecutor, defense attorney, judge, and other court personnel.)

The Canadian criminal justice system consists of multiple roles in order to sustain a well-working government system. The system is put in place in order to keep safety, equality, peace and fairness. There are four main functions of the criminal justice system that are interrelated segments that help protect a society from crime. The criminal justice system consists of policing, courts, corrections and parole. The component of the Canadian Criminal Justice System that will be discussed is about the process and function of the courts.

To provide a balance in specific nations and considerations of cross cutting, the issues must go beyond national boundaries. The traditional contrast of adversarial versus legal systems will be to determine what impacted each system that may have on preventing wrongful convictions and whether or not the traditional difference remains viable or needs revision. The number of public policies intended to reduce the number of these convictions and compensate more fairly and just to those who are the victims of these mistrials.

In America we have an Adversary System of Justice, which means that criminal trials proceed under the adversary theory of justice to arrive at the truth in a given case. One characteristic of this system is intensive cross-examination of both defense and prosecution witnesses. In a jury trial, it is for the jury, which observes these witnesses, to weigh the evidence and make the ultimate decision in every case—guilty or not guilty. However, not every case makes it to trial in fact, about 80% of defendants plead guilty allowing them to just be sentenced and not have to go through the whole process of a trial. Other cases are dropped, or dismissed if the prosecutor, or in some cases a grand jury, feels that there is insufficient evidence to carry on. Some defendants are sent to diversion programs, these individuals are often sent here because an official involved in the case believes that there is a better way to deal with a defendant than to prosecute them.

During her study of the Scottish criminal justice system, McBarnet was able to construct an idea of a “two-tier” justice system. In her work, McBarnet reported on the major disparity of proceedings and procedures between the higher and lower courts. Upon my observation of proceedings in the lower and higher courts, I believe this ‘gap’ is prominent in the NSW criminal adversarial system.

The adversarial nature of the Australian court system is fundamentally implemented to ensure a fair and impartial trial for members of the public, yet this is not always the case. Access to justice, and the courts themselves, are often perceived quite variably depending on an individual’s experience with such institutions. In particular, it is often the disadvantaged in our society, such as those from low socio-economic backgrounds, youth and Indigenous Australians, who are the most neglected and disheartened by fair access to the court systems. However, this is not to say that the system specifically works in favor of educated, white individuals. The systematic approach to court processes, consisting of the apparent impartiality of judges and trials by jury, often impede the natural course of justice and do not allow for a fair and unbiased trial.

The Canadian Criminal Justice System is, for the most part, reflective of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and various Supreme Court of Canada case-law. Everyone who finds themselves on the opposing end of the Criminal Justice System is entitled to certain protections every step of the way, beginning even before the arrest; laws protect us from unreasonable investigative techniques, guarantee certain rights at point of arrest, and provide us with the right to counsel. The bail court departs from the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ standard in that the crown only needs to prove on a balance of probabilities (Kellough, 1996, p. 175) in order to take away a person’s freedom. It is for this reason I decided to limit the scope of my

In the United States, the adversarial system of justice relies on ensuring a criminal defendant receives a fair trial. The sixth amendment gives defendants the right to legal representation in criminal trials even if they cannot afford one themselves. Each city and county in the United States ensures a defendant the right to counsel. There are different ways cities and counties across the United States provide representation for indigent defendants. One such approach to indigent defense is public defender programs and is a popular system used by many states today. Public defender programs have been around since the 1900’s but gained popularity throughout the years due to the many indigent defense cases.

In the course preserving the law and order, the effectiveness of the system designed to administer justice cannot be over emphasized. Faith in the adjudicatory system by the populace is often underscored by the satisfaction the populace derives from it in terms of its administration of justice. Hence it is pertinent to analyze the approach certain countries are employ in their respective adjudicatory process.