The Adversarial System Essay

In the United State we have many systems, like all others, it is separated the use of some irrelevant or untrustworthy evidence. The system that I am referring to and the one that we will be discussing in this paper is the exclusionary rule. It is the introduction of a good evidence, that it is obtained by a bad law enforcement, is most common in the United State than other countries legal system. To put it in other words, the exclusionary rule is controversial. Therefore, many experts say that it sets criminals free on minor points. In this paper, I will speak about the pros and cons of the exclusionary rule, how it is effecting the criminal justice system of the United State. In addition, I will speak and summarize the case of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. Scott from 1998, this will be a great example of the exclusionary rule and the effects about them. Furthermore, I will show how this case was important with the Exclusionary Rule, and my opinion on the matter.

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.

Pierce and Chambers, Continuity evidence in criminal cases a somewhat defence perspective, viewed 1 April 2017,

Anti-scientific bias has been an American evidence law for several reason. Many of admissibility and legal sufficiency rules have been proved to be bias in America. This bias has been an underlying issue that typically for the citizen that become potential juror because they cannot critically evaluate the evidence like a highly professional would. In the results of a national educational test, it was demonstrated that there is a widespread in the United States of scientific illiteracy. With the principle of scientific proof, there has been a lot of controversy over drugs testing presents with forensic science and the unknown of the citizen who are posed as jurors during this time. This was a debate that the scientific community could help and

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.

Two contributing factors to the wrongful conviction of Anthony Smith are eyewitness identification and the adversarial process. The adversarial process relies on the skills and resources of the defense and prosecution. Eyewitness identification includes evidence from a witness who has seen the event and can pick out a perpetrator. In this case, some reasons Smith was wrongfully convicted was because of the adversarial process, he hired a private lawyer Akim Gurdy, but could only pay $3,000 of the $10,000 they were originally supposed to. Gurdy then stopped investigating the case for this reason, and Smith was given an appointed attorney who lacked the capacity to help him with his case. Another reason to Smith’s wrongful conviction was due to eyewitness identification errors.

The first grounds for an appeal, in regards to Arika’s testimony, is that identification evidence of Bargo at [20] was wrongly admitted. Except as otherwise provided in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (EA), in order for evidence to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Evidence will be considered relevant in a proceeding, if that evidence when accepted, could rationally affect the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding. The facts in issues are the elements of the crime with which the defendant is being charged. Identification evidence from a witness is made up of the witness asserting that the accused is the person the witness heard, saw, or smelt perpetrating the crime. In the present case, Arika’s testimony would be classified as identification evidence, as she asserted that Bargo was the person who she had seen rape her.

Although Lobo and Schnobrich-Davis (2015) managed to remove the unrealistic use of non-jury qualified respondents in their study, methodological weaknesses are evident. First, 81 percent of the participants had not experienced a jury service, which cannot connect their answers with their actual jury verdicts in real cases. Second, the evidence presented is not clear in terms of direction. Are these evidence supporting guilt or no guilt? Without a clear evidential direction, there is no control in the weight of evidence towards conviction or acquittal. Moreover, are these evidence taken from a real case in each scenario? Otherwise, lack of realism in evidence will be a confounding factor in the study. Third, defining “tech” or “CSI” as technological skill established no clear connection between technological skills and knowledge or belief in crime scene science and technology. A potential jury maybe technologically skillful but has no interest in crime scene technology. Or, a less skillful citizen technologically may have strong interest in following CSI and similar

These fluctuations in criminal justice policies are not just in local governing bodies; these changes are an effort to adapt to a new technologically based modern age, and that goal of adaptation radiates to all ends of the earth, thereby having a global reach. As all societies, and populations of people alter and change, and belief systems ebb and flow, the rules and laws that govern such people must change with them. It is imperative that a governing system stay current, for without an ever-changing system of behavioral structure then those societies race faster toward

The traditional criminal justice system is criticized for its neglect of victim importance and needs, for example (Symonds, 1980) acknowledges, that the criminal justice system is concerned about looking back at the event rather than focusing on how to rehabilitate and as a consequence making victims be in a ‘secondary victimization’ effect. This is the attitudes, behaviors and the beliefs of the people in the criminal

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.

Victims of crime, particularly those violent in nature, have their rights violated and experience exceedingly high level of trauma and stress (Appendix B, 2015). It is surprising then, that Criminal Justice Systems (CJS) around the world forgo many victims’ rights and provided limited space for them to interact with the system (Sarre, 1999). Rather systems are built around balancing the rights of offenders against the greater safety and need of the community whilst neglecting individual justice needs of the victims (Sarre, 1999). With limited rights and minimal involvement a victim often becomes a disposable utensil to the CJS (Clark, 2010). They are used by the courts to determine the ultimate truth so justice may be served, with no care for the damage that may be caused in the process and then disposed of the case is concluded (Braun, 2014). In 2011-2012 a victimisation survey revealed that 1.2 million Australians were victims of personal crimes, such as assault, robbery and sexual assault (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Of these victims, only half of the crimes were reported to the police (Australian Institution of Criminology, 2013). Such low reporting rates have been contributed in part to this notion of imbalance offender VS victims’ rights (Braun, 2014). Due to the sensitive nature of sexual crimes, the limited available evidence and victim rights, these crimes tend to carry the lowest reporting rates (Braun, 2014). During the latest Australian

The idea of law and order in this country isn’t a new one and, in fact, has taken a very long time to get to the point it is today. But it isn’t done changing or improving because with every new advancement and technology law must adapt to encompass these new gray areas and make them clear in the court of law. An example of a few large milestones in United States’ law that reflect such adaptability are the Federal Rules of Evidence; Federal Rules for Civil Procedure; and the Sedona Conference. Each of these milestones have made clear many issues and gray areas in the law. Issues in evidence collection and presenting as well as digital evidence collection are a few of the many subjects covered in these federal rules.

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.

Evidence is defined as any matter of fact, the effect, tendency, or design of which is to produce in the mind a persuasion, affirmative or disaffirmative, of the existence of some other matter of fact that a crime has been committed.(Paul B. Watson, 1986) In a legal sense, evidence is the information presented in court during a trial which enables the judge and jury to decide a particular case (Garland & Stuckey, 2000). There are two main types of evidence, which are testimony and physical items which can be presented to the judge and jury during a criminal trial. Physical evidence is any evidence found at the perpetrator’s