Advantages Of Adversarial Legal System

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.

Under the adversarial system, litigants are represented by their advocates or counsels before a Judge or Jury

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 objective of an adversarial system and an inquisitorial system is similar, but the path to justice is very different. The terms adversarial and inquisitorial are used to describe types of justice systems in which represent common law and civil law respectively. The adversarial system is a legal system where two parties’ positions are represented before an unbiased judge or a jury who attempt to determine the truth behind the case. In an inquisitorial system, a judge contributes to the preparation of evidence along with how the different parties are to present their case at the trial. The judge plays the role of finding the truth and all the evidence that either proves the innocence or guilt of the accused. The adversarial system is clearly the more impartial and accurate way to determine the truth within a case.

The adversarial and inquisitorial trial systems are the two most widely used in the world, both operating in similar but different ways. The adversarial system is a system based on the notion of two adversaries battling in an arena before an impartial third party, with the emphasis on winning. There are five main elements of the adversarial system; the role of the judge, the role of the parties, the role of legal representation, burden and standard of proof and the rules of evidence of procedure. The inquisitorial system is a method of legal practice in which the judge endeavours to discover facts while simultaneously representing the interests of the state in a trial. In this system, the judge is primarily responsible for

The legitimacy of the criminal justice system is based largely upon both its effectiveness and its fairness. Its effectiveness is judged by its ability to investigate and detect crime, identify offenders and mete out the appropriate sanctions to those who have been convicted of offences. Its fairness is judged by its thoroughness and the efforts it makes to redress the resource imbalance between the accused and the state at the investigatory, pre-trial, trial and appellate stages. The system does this by providing evidentiary protection and effective legal representation at all points.

The development of specific rules of evidence from the 18th. century onwards were much influenced by the jury system of trial. Concerns with the ability of lay juries to evaluate and assimilate various data led to safeguards being introduced The perceived need within the current adversarial system for such “rules” has, as

In the inquisitorial system the judge is the central evidence gatherer and directs the trial to get to the truth, he then questions the witness and examines evidence of a case in private and comes to a decision. The judge plays the detective law and fact finder role that looks into facts and evidence. No burden of proof is necessary and no jury is used in the inquisitorial system instead a panel of judges to decide on a case. This is better than having a jury because they are qualified and experienced in this field. The jury may not have legal background knowledge and wouldn’t be able to make the right decision as the other panel of judges would. The Inquisitorial system is much faster, more efficient and also a less expensive process than the adversarial system.