Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Advantages and disadvantages of inquisitorial legal system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Nearly all non-English speaking industrial democracies use the inquisitorial system rather than the adversary system. In this system, the judge, not the prosecutor and not the defense attorney, calls witness and questions them. Would you prefer being tried under the adversary system or the inquisitorial system? The Adversary system, and I will explain further in my discussion post as to why. Would you have confidence in the willingness of the judge to search out equally evidence for conviction and evidence for acquittal? Consequently, yes, I would have confidence in the willingness of the judge to search out equally evidence for conviction and evidence for acquittal.
“The adversary system assumes that vigorous and equal combat
The courtroom is not used for finding out the truth. It is used for power and gaining riches. Jerome Facher, a defendant in the Woburn case for Grace, was good wi...
Kassin, Saul, and Lawrence Wrightsman (Eds.). The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. Chapter 3. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1985. Print.
The setting in the short story “The Most Dangerous Game” has many similarities and differences to the setting in “The Interlopers”. Though the settings differ in many ways, for example the danger of them and their contents, they are also similar in their mystery and vitality to the plot. These two pieces of writing hold many of the same ideas, but they also are original works that portray them in their own way.
Due to such limitations within the jury selection process, it is hardly said to be a fair and just system. In Europe, defendants are always tried by judges and assessors which I believe to be a much fairer way in deciding the innocence or guilt of a person.
What many American do not realize is that the concept of peremptory challenges has been around since the Roman era, but controversy over the topic in America did not come about until the twentieth century (Henley 1). Under Roman law, each litigant was allowed to select 100 jurors and then strike as many as 50 people from the jury pool (1). English Common law allowed the defendant 35 peremptory challenges, while the prosecution had an unlimited amount (1). This system was alive in England until 1305 when Parliament outlawed the prosecution’s right to peremptory challenges (1). It took over 600 years for Parliament to do the same with the rights to challenges for defendants in 1988 (1). The American legal system, being based on British common law, has always allowed for the use of peremptory challenges. One reasoning behind this fact is the American tradition of challenges (6). To be exact, the reason we continue to use peremptory challenges ...
The American Jury system has been around for quite some time. It was the original idea that the framers of the constitution had wanted to have implemented as a means of trying people for their illegal acts, or for civil disputes. The jury system has stood the test of time as being very effective and useful for the justice system. Now it has come into question as to if the jury system is still the best method for trials. In the justice system there are two forms of trials, one being the standard jury trial, where 12 random members of society come together to decide the outcome of something. The other option would be to have a bench trial. In a bench trial, the judge is the only one deciding the fate of the accused. While both methods are viable
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.
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 the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
Viewing a judge's sentence creates a divide in society. Will the accused be offered a fair trial? Could t...
The right to a trial by jury is deeply embedded in the American democratic stance. This shines through the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments
...y had not committed. The 104 participants were paired up, one being the interrogator and the other being the suspect for a mock theft. Some of the suspects were to be labeled as “guilty” while others were labeled as “not guilty”. The interrogators had 10 minutes to as questions, and then report back to the judge their opinion and how confident their opinion was. The discoveries of the experiment showed that the interrogators with the innocent suspects were exerting more pressure for a confession then those who were guilty. Also, those innocent were found guilty more often than those who had committed the crime. This information is parallel with other data discovered during actual interrogations. Officers often presumed guilt before having enough evidence to prove it and when the interrogation is not going their way, they tend to try to coerce a confession.
The jury system is essentially a descendant of Great Britain, the Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians. Colonialism played a significant role in the development of the jury system globally. However, despite colonial influence, judicial systems across the world have taken their own way. As a result, the jury system has developed and changed to suit the needs and social conscience of different countries. Across the world, juries examine and decide the facts in a jury trial, the accuracy of the testimony, the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants, and liabilities in a civil litigation. Today, many countries such as Britain, United States, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Australia, France, German, India, and so on practice jury trials. These countries will be the issue of discussion in this paper.
Arguments For and Against Juries The right to a trial by jury is a tradition that goes right to the the heart of the British legal system. It is a right fiercely fought for. and fiercely defended at those times when its powers have been seen to be under threat as those backing reforms are finding. The tradition of being "tried by a jury of one's peers" probably has its origins in Anglo Saxon custom, which dictated that an accused man could be acquitted if enough people came forward to swear his innocence.
Though most court cases in the U.S. is settled by a bench trial, those who go to a trial by jury have a greater chance of being prejudice towards the defendant which tends to be highly unfavorable and most the time leads to a guilty verdict. An example of this would be the case of Foster v. The State