In this assignment I’m going discuss about the key difference between adversarial and inquisitorial system of justice. This assignment will also include how both methods are being used in the legal system and which one is more just then the other. Adversarial and inquisitorial both maintain the right judgment of the defendant as well as making sure they protect the innocent. Nevertheless, there many differences as to the way each system takes the action as both systems are looking to service justice. Through, each method comes with it’s own advantages and disadvantages. Both systems have also been advanced in its own historical setting. Above all the system makes sure that the innocent does not suffer in the name of justice, as the system …show more content…
Nonetheless, inquisitorial is a system used of countries that base their legal system civil law. When using the inquisitorial system the judge’s responsibility includes investigating all aspects of the case and overseeing the evidences collected by the police. The judge hears the witnesses as well as the accused, and then judge questions the witness based on the evidences on the record which he\she has examined. At this point neither the defence nor the prosecution lawyers has the right to cross-examine, nevertheless, they do have the right to present effective abstracts (Tim Newburn. …show more content…
The inquisitorial system allows the judges to interfere with the case whereas the adversarial allows the defence and the prosecution lawyers to find all the information needed for the case and be presented by them in front of the judge. Although both systems use differences ways to service justice the systems still make sure the innocent is given its rights and not put way for something they did not do. This could sometimes not be seen as a way of servicing justice as the accused could walk free if there is not enough evidences to convict them. Furthermore, a common issue that is raised from the inquisitorial system is the fact that the questions asked might be seen bias as the verdict lies with one person ‘s judgment and therefore, might not be completely clear. Although in adversarial system the collection of evidences lies with the police, defence and the prosecution lawyers, the prosecutors have to proof the offender’s guilt ‘beyond reasonable doubts’. If the judge or jury have the slightest doubt about the prosecutor not proofing the defendant guilty they must acquit and must find the defendant ‘not
One of the benefits of due process is demonstrated in the Belshaw case. The inquisitorial system of justice is based on crime control; the Swiss police had a hard time in Canada with Mr. Belshaw, because of his right to due process, under Canadian law. Both systems of justice share common beliefs, for example, they both look for proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Canada we fight about facts and laws, where-as the inquisitorial system searches for the facts. The adversarial system has a separation of powers with the police, crown, defense, and the judge. It is quite different for the inquisitorial system of justice, the police do the arrest, then they present the facts to crown, which then decide if they have a case and turn over the evidence to the judge. The only problem is that the judge decides what will lead them to the truth. How any evidence was collected is irrelevant. In due process if the police obtain evidence and violate the law or a persons charter of rights and freedoms the judge will exclude the evidence from the hearing, even if it would help or prove that the person is guilty. These two systems of justice are generated in democratic traditions.
At trial, your life is in the palms of strangers who decide your fate to walk free or be sentenced and charged with a crime. Juries and judges are the main components of trials and differ at both the state and federal level. A respectable citizen selected for jury duty can determine whether the evidence presented was doubtfully valid enough to convict someone without full knowledge of the criminal justice system or the elements of a trial. In this paper, juries and their powers will be analyzed, relevant cases pertaining to jury nullification will be expanded and evaluated, the media’s part on juries discretion, and finally the instructions judges give or may not include for juries in the court. Introduction Juries are a vital object to the legal system and are prioritized as the most democratic element in our society, aside from voting, in our society today.
This system, therefore, had two effects. In my opinion, Right and wrong are inherited in the nature of things, and people cannot deny that. The punishment must be proportional to the crime. There should be as few laws as possible. With neoclassical criminology, people are to be protected from actions that would kill them an in my opinion it is not just.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
The merits of both the adversarial and inquisitorial system will be explored throughout this paper. The Australian rule of law best describes as all law should be applied equally and fairly. The five vital operations of the rule of law includes fairness, rationality, predictability, consistency, and impartially. The adversarial system adopts these operations by having a jury decide on the verdict and the judge being an impartial decision maker. In contrast, the inquisitorial system relies heavily on the judge. This can result in abusive power and bias of the judge when hearing evidence and delivering verdicts. The operations of the rule of law determine why the rule of law is best served by the adversarial system in Australia.
In general, the adversarial court system facilitates various methods of achieving just and fair outcomes in the criminal justice system. However, the court system is not the only route in sentencing offenders with
In conclusion, as shown throughout this paper, evidence is needed to convince jurors to give a verdict of guilt or not guilt. Evidence comes in several forms such as physical evidence, substantial evidence. When evidence is presented, it acceptance in trial depends on relevant to the case to be admissible. “Relevance refers to any material fact or evidence having a tendency to make the existence of a matter at issue more probable than it would be without said fact (probative value)”(Britz, 2008, p. 344).
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
The basis of criminal justice in the United States is one founded on both the rights of the individual and the democratic order of the people. Evinced through the myriad forms whereby liberty and equity marry into the mores of society to form the ethos of a people. However, these two systems of justice are rife with conflicts too. With the challenges of determining prevailing worth in public order and individual rights coming down to the best service of justice for society. Bearing a perpetual eye to their manifestations by the truth of how "the trade-off between freedom and security, so often proposed so seductively, very often leads to the loss of both" (Hitchens, 2003, para. 5).
In much of Europe there is an inquisitorial form of trail, whereby a judge is responsible for interviewing witnesses. Th...
From conception in the Magna Carta 1215, juries have become a sacred constitutional right in the UK’s justice system, with the independence of the jury from the judge established in the R v. Bushel’s case 1670. Although viewed by some as a bothersome and an unwelcomed duty, by others it is perceived to be a prized and inalienable right, and as Lord Devlin comments ‘ trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution : it is the lamp that shows freedom lives.’ It is arguable that juries bring a ‘unique legitimacy’ to the judicial process, but recently it seems that their abolition may be the next step forward for the UK in modernising and making the judicial system more effective. Many argue that jurors lack the expertise and knowledge to make informed verdicts, along with views that external forces are now influencing juries more heavily, especially after the emergence of the internet and the heavy presence it now has on our lives. Yet, corruption within the jury system is also internal, in that professionals and academics may ‘steamroll’ others during deliberations about the case. These factors, coupled with the exorbitant costs that come along with jury trials creates a solid case for the abolition of juries. On the other hand though, the jury system carries many loyal supporters who fear its abolition may be detrimental to society. Academics and professionals such as John Morris QC state that; 'it may well not be the perfect machine, but it is a system that has stood the test of time.’ Juries ensure fair-practice within the courtroom, and although controversial, they have the power to rule on moral and social grounds, rather than just legal pre...
The crime control model and the due process model are two different, yet similar models that was identified by Herbert Pecker and that are used in the criminal justice process. However, how important are these models in the criminal justice process? And is it necessary for us to have both of these models which to an extent performs similar outcomes. To answer these questions this essay will explaining the meaning of these two models, in addition, it will be looking at the differences that there are between these two models. And as a result, reveal the importance of these two models and whether it is necessary to have both models
The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.
Evidence collection is a crucial part of forensics. Its reliability can be compromised by input bias from law
...n of legally obtained evidence and statements. Each and every person involved in the process of the evidence collection and processing must be available for trial. If one of these parties is not available, it may cause some doubt in the juror’s mind, as to what was done with that piece of evidence. The case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In conclusion if any piece of this investigation is not followed by using established guidelines, the outcome will not lead to the successful conviction.