Strengths And Weaknesses Of The Adversarial System

Many victims/survivors have described the experience of cross-examination as worse than the actual ordeal (Knowles, G 2013). Interrogation and twisting of the statement the witness gave to turn their words on them is particularly traumatising (Knowles, G 2013). The experience often described as; disgusting, degrading and exhausting as the victim/survivor is interrogated again and again with their person and past being brought into question (Knowles, G 2013). The need for victims/survivors to believed and treated fairly is a main reason why they seek the legal system, then to have it thrown back in their face does not benefit the victim/survivor at all (Knowles, G 2013). With the practice, more focused on tearing down the victim/survivor than actually presenting all the evidence and allowing the judge/jury to make an informed decision it clouds the truth of the trail. The adversarial system almost supports this type of action in the court rooms, since it’s more focused on being ‘confrontational as cases are presented as disputes and trails as contest of opposing interest’ (Freiberg, A 2011). While it may be true that the adversarial system in the past has scored better at delivering the desired results of a case this may not be able to extend to the damage that cross-examination can inflict onto a victim (Laxminarayan, M 2014). The inquisitorial model, on the other hand, was made on

The influx of huge amounts of information, evolving technology had challenged criminal investigation systems and for that matter, the investigators. Any violations in Law lead to involvement of criminal investigation. The court bears all the expenses of the procedures in investigating the case, except the defence lawyer hired by the accused. In situations where the accused cannot afford, the state is liable to pay for his lawyer. It is a must that all the witnesses of the prosecution and the defence appear to the trial.

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.

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

In this paper I will provide an analysis of a jury trial; my analysis will focus on the right of the defendant. I will articulate how a defendant 's rights at trial can be assured when it comes to The defendant’s right to a speedy trial, the defendant’s right to an impartial judge and the defendant’s right to an impartial jury.

The fact finding process during the trial of a case is one of the most critical aspects in the administration of justice. Every country has its methods to determine how a case is to be tried. It is within the prerogative of every state to determine the best approach in a court trial while considering the immortal principles of natural justice.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Following such protocol could help in cases where classifying a person’s guilt is based on fact finding by way of fair and honest legal procedures instead of presenting facts alone. Because the rights listed in the Constitution are not simple, accountability and liability must be present for criminal justice officials and authorities. Equality and uniformity should have a place in the justice process.