The two systems which are constantly being analysed is the Adversarial and the Inquisitorial procedure which both have supporters and critiques, advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, the main aim of the essay will be to demonstrate how legal systems available in some countries are sometimes insufficient in finding the truth of cases and subsequently leading to miscarriage of justice Imprisonment is a popular form of punishment used in society.
Each country practises the justice system differently to maintain civilisation while striving to create peace and balance within their society For example, a person who has omitted some small fact or matter because they thought it was irrelevant, cross-examining that person could bring the matter up and could lead to proof being found out about something that was uncertain previously. Therefore, the defendant has the chance to prove their innocence and the prosecution will also have the opportunity to prove the guilt of the opposing party, making it fair for both sides.
In this system, the prosecution and the defense present their case to an impartial court. The judge relies on both sides calling witnesses and presenting evidence to both judge and jury. The adversary system provides the best system for achieving justice in criminal cases through cross-examination of witnesses as it allows for evidence to be examined and for irrelevant or unimportant evidence to be discarded.
Juries are an important element of criminal trials in the adversary system and aid it in being the best system for achieving justice.
Through the use of plea bargaining in criminal trials, the adversary system is the best system for accomplishing justice. The adversary system is the best system for achieving justice in criminal trials because of its use of several different elements.
These elements combine to produce an effective and working system that provides justice to a majority of cases and instances. They also advance arguments and interpret laws in accordance with their interest.
On the other hand, the accused does not have to prove anything at the initial stage of the trial because he has a constitutional presumption of innocence. The Adversarial system believes that the responsibility for finding the truth should lie with the litigants, not to the judge. Every person can relate to it whether that competition is within a sport, video game, or a court hearing.
The Canadian legal structure operates on the adversarial system. The central importance of relevance to the admissibility of evidence will be linked to the purpose served by the tribunal of fact. The range of factors which impact on the criminal justice system will act as a basis to consider the justification for the exclusion of certain evidential material.
Developments in attitudes as a result of recent legislation will lead Essay on Adult Justice System vs.
Criteria for Assessing the Effectiveness of Justice Systems There are different ways of assessing the effectiveness of a justice system. This proposal assesses the effectiveness of adversarial and inquisitorial systems based on how well they align with legal traditions.
In his article titled, 'the Criminal Justice System in Jeopardy', K van Dijkhorst outlines the three fundamental aims of any legal system: i to perform truth-finding, with the outcome being the acquittal of the innocent and conviction of the guilty; ii to perform truth-finding in a manner that is fair and protective of the rights of both the accused and the society; and iii to accomplish the two preceding objectives in an effective and efficient manner.
In the author's words, the legal system's aim is "to arrive at the truth expeditiously and fairly" Dijkhorst, , p. The subsequent sections use this criteria to assess the effectiveness of the two systems of justice above. Truth-finding: the logic of the adversary process is that fairness and justice are achieved if parties are allowed an opportunity to be defended in the courtroom by counsel knowledgeable in matters of law Ambos, For this reason, defendants are accorded the right to counsel, and the defense attorney is given an opportunity to develop a case, and examine and cross-examine witnesses to prove the defendant's innocence.
Judges and jurors are required to make their decision and establish the truth based on the facts raised by counsel. This is the objective of truth-finding. However, this truth-finding may be defeated if the parties to the controversy are not equal South African Law Commission, 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, This could occur if counsel is inexperienced or poor South African Law Commission, The partisan approach to evidence-production beats the truth-finding objective.
The way society is socialized leads to certain bias to people of different races, genders, sexuality, and backgrounds. The feminist legal theory suggests that the legal system is male dominated and perpetuates gender discrimination Bucher, He is a passive recipient of information. Therefore, the defendant has the chance to prove their innocence and the prosecution will also have the opportunity to prove the guilt of the opposing party, making it fair for both sides. Kipnis, Kenneth.
This is so that there is less chance of an innocent person being convicted. If one can easily understand this element of division which is providing the clear cut line of demarcation, although very thin in two trial systems then it is very easy to comprehend the essence of adversarial and inquisitorial trial systems. Differences between the Adversarial and Inquisitorial Systems Despite the similarities outlined in the preceding section, the inquisitorial and adversary systems of justice are essentially different.