But we are only concerned with these two. Parisi and Massenot from the view of the cost of two systems, conclude common law system has more financial benefits for society. The fourth part contains concluding remarks. In the adversarial system, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The system empowers the parties to the dispute to take control of their own case on the basis that they as opposed to a judge are better placed to present their best case. Furthermore, police are permitted to detain you fort up to 48 hours without arresting you.
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. Similarities between the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems A similar feature shared by both the inquisitorial and adversarial systems is that both methods rely on an impartial fact-finder to preside over the case and give a verdict. Most of the procedure is conducted in writing; the plaintiff writes to the court, which asks explanations from the administration or public service concerned; when answered, the court may then ask further detail from the plaintiff, etc. They must decide whether the prosecution has proved the defendant guilty, beyond reasonable doubt. In this study, the researcher will apply the exploratory design to consolidate and gain new insights from the existing literature and empirical evidence on the differences between inquisitorial and adversarial systems of trial. Before embarking on the main discussion, it would be prudent to provide brief definitions of inquisitorial and adversarial justice systems. There is criticism of both systems.
Their role is not to prosecute the accused, but to gather facts, and as such their duty is to look for any and all à charge et à décharge , incriminating or exculpatory. The legal system in the United States is an example of one that is adversarial. In due course this dossier is presented to a court , with a different judge, which will inquire into its accuracy. However, he mentions the disadvantage of this process that only the evidence that is preferred by lawyer can be presented on the court. In an adversarial system, the police and defence are responsible for gathering evidence, and an evaluation of that evidence is done by an unbiased judge.
Later, during the medieval period, more features were added to the two processes, leading to further evolution of the distinction between them. To the contrary, the adversarial system is usually adopted in countries where the equality of the accused and the accusing parties is used as an important factor in determining the fairness of a trial. When an accused is unable to engage adequately in the process because they are not properly-represented, the truth may not emerge South African Law Commission, 2002. Role of the Defense Counsel Adversarial -The defense counsel gathers evidence and produce arguments in order to defend their client and attack the credibility and worthiness of the evidence put forth by the crown. You have fewer rights as a defendant. The distinction between an adversarial and inquisitorial system is theoretically unrelated to the distinction between a civil legal and common law system.
In inquisitorial system the court itself is active to secure justice, legal representation from the side of accused is not regarded indispensable. And investors earn more money than entrepreneurs, since the great market to investigate the evidence. It did not mean that because he was found not guilty that he was not involved in the murders, but simply his lawyers performed better. Conversely, the judge involved in inquisitorial proceedings is more active. . There are many strengths of the adversary system.
After robbing and killing two men, Gregg was tried, heard and convicted on two counts of murder and armed robbery. Under modern laws, does the system still play its part?. Generally, it is an executive process 13. The judge in the adversary system is completely independent and impartial and cases are decided purely on their merits in accordance with law. Among the questions this paper will take into consideration are: Is the adversarial system the best way to achieve justice in the criminal courts of the United States; what those limitations are; how those limitations deliver justice; alternatives to the adversarial system; and the advantages or disadvantages of those alternatives. Beginning in 1198, issued a series of decretals that reformed the ecclesiastical court system.
He is not directly involved in the questioning of witnesses and presentation of evidence; and the entire process is framed by strict rules designed to ensure equality and fairness Ambos, 2003. Programs are the applications that you run on the computer like word or excel or computer … games etc. The adversarial system has many great aspects which makes it the desirable system. He records every proceeding between the adversaries and their advocates. Hearsay evidence is very rarely admitted to prove a fact. This could occur if counsel is inexperienced or poor South African Law Commission, 2002.
The inquisitorial system: this is a procedure of legal practice, where the judge endeavors to discover facts and at the same time represent the state's interest in a Ambos, 2003. The assumption is that, by allowing the lawyers maximum freedom to find, present, assess and challenge the evidence, the truth is most likely to be found. But it does not follow that if you have a common law tradition you must have an adversarial trial system, or that if you have a Civil Law system that you must have an investigatory system. For instance, Jolowicz gives a comprehensive overview of both systems, from the role of judge and the power of parties. Primary data is original in nature or data that has not been altered from the manner it was gathered for the first time.