Adversarial Vs Inquisitorial System Essay
The researcher will compare and contrast the pros and cons of the adversarial system of criminal trials in the United States and the inquisitorial system of criminal trials in France.
The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case (Adversary procedure). Meaning There would be two lawyers one defense lawyer and a Prosecutor lawyer. In this system, the parties to a controversy develop and present their arguments, gather and submit evidence, call and question witnesses, and, within the confines of certain rules, control the …show more content…
Less bias the judge would usually go there and try to to get the truth not who’s guilty and who’s innocent. They rely less on legal representation. More likely that relevant evidence is brought out because the decision maker (Judge) controls the production of evidence. The cost is mainly borne by the state ,Written statements reduce cost. Weaknesses of Inquisitorial system are Judge is less impartial as they do get involved with all aspects of the trial. The greater reliance on written evidence denies parties the opportunity to test the evidence. Parties are not able to call their own expert witnesses which can affect the decision maker viewpoint. At the mercy of the judge Judge may form bias.Too much power in hands of the judge can affect the decision. France uses the Inquisitorial system, along with the rest of continental Europe, and many countries in South America, Africa and Asia. According to this tradition, which is tied to Common Civil Law, the truth is uncovered through questioning those most familiar with the dispute by a judicial authority. It's up to an "independent" prosecutor or investigating magistrate to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence
The adversarial system or adversary system is a legal system used in the common law countries where two advocates represent their parties' positions before an impartial person or group of people, usually a jury or judge, who attempt to determine the truth of the case (Adversary procedure). Meaning There would be two lawyers one defense lawyer and a Prosecutor lawyer. In this system, the parties to a controversy develop and present their arguments, gather and submit evidence, call and question witnesses, and, within the confines of certain rules, control the …show more content…
Less bias the judge would usually go there and try to to get the truth not who’s guilty and who’s innocent. They rely less on legal representation. More likely that relevant evidence is brought out because the decision maker (Judge) controls the production of evidence. The cost is mainly borne by the state ,Written statements reduce cost. Weaknesses of Inquisitorial system are Judge is less impartial as they do get involved with all aspects of the trial. The greater reliance on written evidence denies parties the opportunity to test the evidence. Parties are not able to call their own expert witnesses which can affect the decision maker viewpoint. At the mercy of the judge Judge may form bias.Too much power in hands of the judge can affect the decision. France uses the Inquisitorial system, along with the rest of continental Europe, and many countries in South America, Africa and Asia. According to this tradition, which is tied to Common Civil Law, the truth is uncovered through questioning those most familiar with the dispute by a judicial authority. It's up to an "independent" prosecutor or investigating magistrate to distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence