Adversary System In Australia Essay

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.

Within the criminal justice system discuss the effectiveness of legal and non-legal measures in achieving justice.

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).

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

The role of the judge in the adversary system of trial, unlike the inquisitorial counterpart, has less involvement in the establishment of facts and the analysis of evidence in cases brought before the court. In the inquisitorial system of trial, the judge has a much more active role in relation to the handling and evaluation of evidence, and where relevant, can actually cross examine and question witnesses if they feel crucial evidence may have been missed. While the inquisitorial system of trial has a seemingly more intrusive judge, having an added legal expert questioning and raising areas where evidence may have been missed, is a significant improvement over a judge who may know evidence has been missed but cannot intervene such is the

The adversarial system is moderately effective in achieving just outcomes for the individual and society as well as attempting to protect their rights.

The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law

My observation discovered the significant difference between the lower courts and upper courts in relations to court operations and process – namely the two tiers of justice. An overwhelming volume of cases were heard and dealt at the Local Court with expeditious environment. The empirical research also shows that on average, the time per matter dealt is four minutes and thirteen seconds, with more than half of matters being dealt less than two minutes. A stark contrast in length was observed at the Supreme Court where an atmosphere of slow pace,

It is widely recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of significant reform, if the nation’s present and future need for fair justice is to be met.

However, under further analysis, it becomes apparent that the verdict acts more as a deterrent rather than an upstanding legal configuration. The legal system, for the average person in New South Wales, is only a figure of authority that deters the individuals from breaking the law, which some may say is what it is there to do. Conversely, we need it to do more than that, we need it to properly meet our requests when we are involved in legal

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 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 Criminal Justice Systems have various objectives to achieve, one of them being reduction of crime levels. Another core objective is practicing justice. These two objectives can be achieved in various ways. Evidence has been presented by the authors that the judicial systems sometimes play unfair in solving crime cases.

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.

In an adversary system the judge and jury as decision makers have a passive role in investigating and gathering evidence and are responsible solely in deciding the case. In contrast, in an inquisitorial system the judge holds a very active role in the process, by choosing which evidence to accept and applying the law to the evidence in deciding the case. Supporters of the adversary system consider this feature as an advantage because they believe that the justice is best achieved where the decision maker is neutral, passive and impartial in deciding the case.