Adversarial vs. Inquisitorial Justice Systems

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

Our society for the most part has a set of written laws by which it operates under. Laws govern our behavior in society and list punishments by which individuals that break them will be prosecuted and sentenced. Our criminal justice system is essential made up of three major intuitions which see a case from the beginning and through the trial and finally to the punishment phase ("How Does the Criminal Justice System Work?," 2014). Our society needs laws and punishment for those who violet the laws otherwise we would live in a world of chaos. In this paper we will examine various aspects of the criminal process from arrest through sentencing and appeal.

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 basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).

The criminal justice system in the United States has traditionally operated under two fundamentally different theories. One theory is the Crime Control Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that criminals should be aggressively pursued and crimes aggressively punished. The other theory is the Due Process Model. This theory is characterized by the idea that the rights of the accused need to be carefully protected in any criminal justice investigation. (Levy, 1999)

The Australian justice system implements the adversarial system in which opposing parties present their case before an unbiased decision maker, to ensure procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice are upheld.The system has been structured this way to ensure justice is served for the victim, offender and the broader community. The nature of justice is that it is equal to all, fair from bias and is accessible. In the case on R v Rolfe and R v Weston (2017) the two offenders; Timothy Rolfe and John Weston, members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club were sentenced at the NSW Supreme Court on a joint criminal enterprise for the murder of 29-year-old Laurence Starling. The killing was motivated by revenge for an unpaid extortion debt of $200,000 between the deceased’s business partner Mr Fields and a high-ranking member of the ‘’Rebels’’ who sent his subordinates to seize Mr Field’s assets as compensation. The complex circumstances of the crime were problematic for the justice system because particular methods had to be implemented in the process of achieving justice however the justice system was relatively effective in reaching a just outcome for majority of the stakeholders due to its resource efficiency, responsiveness, accessibility, standards of fairness, protection of individual rights and meeting society’s needs.

Justice is the concept of moral rightness that is based on equality, access and fairness. This means that the law is applied equally, understood by all people and does not have a particularly harsh effect on an individual. In Australia, the adversary system is used as a means to achieve justice by proving the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, committed the crime. The criminal trial process has many features which aim to fulfill the requirements of achieving justice. These elements, though considers equality, fairness and access, are flawed in practice. Flaws such as the handling of evidence, jurors not understanding instructions, inadequate funds for legal

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.

A crime against the state is seen as a violation of the rule of law, while crime against people is seen as a violation of human rights, and both conditions lead to the punishment of the offender befitting the crime. In this process of achieving justice, those highly impacted by these wrong actions are often ignored; the battle between the offender and the Crown often makes the victim, a mere spectator. The Canadian Criminal Justice System is continuing to do its best in addressing the dissatisfaction victims feel towards the authorities. However, study of literature shows that although victim rights have come a long way and are continuing to develop further, they are not successful in addressing the concerns of the victim. The article, “Crime

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.

I really agree with everything that you said in your second paragraph. In the adversarial system, everyone is given a chance to tell their side of the story. Each party also has the ability to represent the case in the most favorable light to their side. This legal system also eliminates the bias that could happen if a judge were to play a bigger role in the case like they do in the inquisitorial system. I kind of disagree with what you said about this system not producing a fair outcome. I think it produces the fairest outcome possible in most cases. This legal system is undeniable fairer than the inquisitorial system. In child custody cases I think that they would consider what's in the best interests of the child and I do think that's the

Most people don’t know about the three major components of the criminal justice system, but, in this paper the reader will know what they are. The reader will also read about how the three components interrelate to one another, and also how the conflict one another. The

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.

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.