The Inquisitorial System: The History Of The Criminal Justice System

INTRODUCTION
Today, across the world there are over nine million people held in penal institutions. The way in which these individuals have been prosecuted has varied greatly from country to country. Some were sentenced by lay people, military officials or professional lawyers, others were judged at public adversarial trials or through torture a confession was made. The diversity among the criminal justice procedures across the world is vast. Legal Historian Professor John H. Langbein has written extensively about the history of civil and criminal procedure and in particular the adversary system, which is the defining feature of the criminal justice system in England and countries which are founded on the English common law. Professor Langbein

Common law jurisdictions are said to be mainly associated with what is known as an adversarial system whereas civil law systems operate under inquisitorial procedures. The inquisitorial system is generally defined as a system that aims to get to the truth through extensive investigation and examination of all evidence. The adversarial procedure aims to find the truth through the open competition between the prosecution and the defence to make the most compelling argument for their case. Critics of the adversarial approach dispute that the goal of winning often overshadows the search for truth. Legal circles thrive upon debates surrounding the strengths and weaknesses of both systems. Some argue that the reliance of lawyers for the presentation of evidence a characteristic of the adversarial system taints the process and allows for faults in the search for truth. Professor Langebeins aforementioned statement denotes the perception that the inquisitorial procedure is a better system in place for truth finding in criminal law proceedings. Neither system is inherently superior. In fact there are many shared features and many countries integrate features of both procedures, having experienced a level of convergence over the last 80 years which

During the preliminary stages if there is reasonable suspicion the suspect may be placed in a garde à vue. It is usual procedure for the police to notify the procureur about the offence, although, as previously mentioned, formal procedures are not always carried out The detention of the accused in garde à vue would usually last up to twenty four hours but if necessary an extension of time maybe be authorised for another twenty four hours. This would be granted by the procureur, for more serious offences additional extensions can be granted by the juge d’instructionat or the juge d’instructionat juge des libertés et de la detention at the request of the procureur. In cases such as these the suspects right to speak with a lawyer may be delayed for as long as seventy two hours, before amendments to the law which came into force on June 2011 the accused would normally have had access to a lawyer for thirty minutes before the start of detention but now can have access during the entire garde a vue. Goldstein and Marcus implied that the role of the defence lawyer was submissive with little contribution in the development of new evidence which, essentially, weakened the