The Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems of Justice

In the 21st Century many things have been called into question. Among those things is the adversarial system that Australia’s Rule of Law system follows. The argument stands that the adversarial system is too aggressive in its approach to the legal system. Would Australia benefit more from the adversarial system changing into the inquisitorial system or would it be more beneficial to create a hybrid of the two. This essay will aim to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both the current system of adversarial and the more European system of inquisitorial. Highlighting why it is important to begin moving away from a traditional adversarial system drawing evidence from the Family court of Australia, the Netherlands and Nigeria’s current

Australian law has reflected the status of women in Anglo-Celtic culture. Today there are women in Australia from widely diverse cultural backgrounds and the law has a role in ensuring the safety, freedom, security and equality of opportunity for them all. As the status of women varies from culture to culture and changes over time, the law has had to adapt and evolve in order to fulfill its role.

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 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.

The Oxford Learner’s Dictionary defines fairness to be ‘the quality of treating people equally or in a way that is reasonable’ and justice as ‘the quality of being fair or reasonable’ (Oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com, 2014). Investigation of the characteristics of the Australian Legal System (ALS) including its adoption, structure and operational rules, reveal that for the most part the system is based on these two attributes. This inference is further evidenced by the legally binding operational framework assigned to the financial services industry and reflected in the codes of practice that also guide it.

Key features and doctrines of the Australian legal system are the rule of law, procedural fairness and the court hierarchy which are all crucial to achieving justice. Justice is achieved when people are treated without bias, a case is handled just, and equal outcomes are achieved for both parties.

The United States legal system uses the adversarial process and lawyers are needed to this process. In order to obtain solid evidence and legal arguments to face the court, lawyers are held responsible to represent their client’s accordingly to the evidence presented. Parties are responsible for obtaining and introducing evidence to the court. The adversarial system is characterized by law of evidence. Strick rules have been develop over time with the attention to the admissibility and excluding of evidence have developed.

It is recognised that Australia’s System of decision making in the court is in need of reform, if 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.

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 “justice” system, a system in which we as a society use and believe in, to hopefully help filter out the good people from the bad. Putting the bad people, the cruel individuals behind bars to teach them a lesson and to keep them out of our society in which we only wish for peace and harmony. The justice system has existed for centuries, it was created to help distinguish the difference between a good person and a bad person, and hopefully punish the bad person so they can learn their lesson, but over thousands over years this so called “justice” system has fell apart and turned into more of a persuasive conflict to convince either the judge or jurors that the defendant is guilty, rather than to state proven facts to help solidify the reason

The adversarial system involves competing versions of disputed events being advanced by parties to the litigation. The purpose of

Features of the inquisitorial trial system that should be incorporated into the United States’ adversarial trial system would be to warrant the outcome of the cases be centered around the evidence obtained. Also implementing a thorough investigation and examination of evidence in the trial should be incorporated into the U.S. adversarial trial system. Therefore implementing both trial systems together, combining a few features creating a fair and law abiding outcome for the parties involved. Therefore, this combination of features will continue to abide by the rules and regulation of the judicial

Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)