When looking at the different law systems such as civil law, common law, and sacred law, one can examine how each type of system applies their respective theory to the trials ensure due process as well as serving justice. There are two approaches that are primarily practiced in common law countries and civil law countries as well these systems are referred to as adversarial, and inquisitorial respectively.
The inquisitorial system is a pioneer model of criminal procedures and has been around for over 700 years. This system is most commonly associated with Civil Law countries as mentioned earlier. The trial period in this inquisitorial system can be described as more like a continuing investigation than its adversarial counterpart. It demands that the judge must be completely impartial and make decisions based on the law because of the weight held. People often criticize this method due to problems that arise. These are caused by using concepts that don’t blend well to create a sense of due process, or the fact that the judge is granted extreme power at both the investigative and trial levels. There could also be delays in system because of extended pretrial investigations. Some examples of countries that use inquisitorial system are New Zealand, France, China, and Germany among others.
An inquisitorial system, is another model to the adversarial system used in common law countries; New Zealand for example. We can generally describe the inquisitorial system as a system purposed to get to the facts and serve justice through intensive investigation and examining of all tangible articles of evidence. The adversarial system on the other hand, is more geared towards get to the facts through the competition between the prosecution and th...
... middle of paper ...
...ial investigation stage; or one can be appointed. However, this right is restricted if the suspect is involved with terrorist activity. The right to remain silent is also slightly different. There is a portion of the trial where the defendant is required to answer as opposed to the U.S. where the right to remain silent extends throughout the whole process.
These two countries have many similarities and differences when it comes to the way they handle the criminal trial process. They are alike in that there are certain rights given to the defendant even though they are slightly different in their applications. The main difference I found between these two systems is that the U.S. takes an “innocent until proven guilty” approach and France is more of a traditional legal approach meaning the judge has the final say from the trial, to the verdict, and even sentencing.
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.
Well written procedures, rules, and regulation provide the cornerstone for effectively implementing policies within the criminal justice system. During the investigational process, evidence collected is subjected to policies such as Search and Seizure, yet, scrutinized by the Exclusionary Rule prior to the judicial proceeding. Concurrent with criminal justice theories, evidence collected must be constitutionally protected, obtained in a legal and authorized nature, and without violations of Due Process. Although crime and criminal activities occur, applicability of policies is to ensure accountability for deviant behaviors and to correct potentially escalation within social communities It is essential the government address such deviant behavior, however, equally important is the protection of the accused which also must become a priority when investigating criminal cases.
In the world, there are two justice systems; the adversary system and the inquisitorial system. The adversary system, used in countries such as Australia, The UK and The USA, is a justice system involving two parties make allegations before a judge . The inquisitorial system however, used in countries such as Europe, Africa, Asia and South America is a justice system which aims to find truth through discussion and investigation .
Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.
The entire criminal justice system can be very frightening and even intimidating if someone fails to understand the meaning of terms used, procedures, laws, and rules (Cook, 2009). Criminal law is among the terms that have been defined differently by various sources. It is mainly concerned with a system of legal rules defining actions that are classified as crimes and the manner of which the government prosecutes people who commit crimes (Snyman, 2014). According to the chapter, some sources use it in a way that is very general that describes it as the entire spectrum of laws that deal with the criminal justice system while others use shorthand ways which terms it as substantive criminal law, which is very true.
In the Criminal Justice system, the main goal is justice or in other words, a fair consequence to match a criminal action. An obvious, yet unmentioned underlying goal is to prevent injustice. Many times, justice prevails, and this is why our system prevails today. However, when justice fails, it is key to look at the information offered in order to better the system and to repay those that have been failed by it. One area that has shown itself as flawed is the area of interrogations though many other areas will be presented throughout this paper as well. By examining five cases involving questionable interrogation and showing other system flaws, I will enlighten others as to how our justice system handles its flaws, and hopefully I will provide motivation for further improvement.
One of the objections to this institution was that the adversarial principle is violated, this being a fundamental principle of criminal proceedings. But bear in mind that this principle should not be exercised the same in all cases, as simple cases where the facts have been recognized cannot be treated the same way as the most complex cases, where the defendants have not admi...
Roberson, C., Wallace, H., & Stuckey, G. B. (2013). Procedures in the justice system (1st ed.). [Vitalsource or Kaplan University]. Retrieved from https://online.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781269223119/pages/76743177
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
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.
I wanted to look at the investigative and criminal procedures following the arrest of an alleged criminal and the powerful effects via testimonies and evidence (or lack thereof) it can have on a case.There is an importance of the courts in regards to crime that can’t be over looked. The primary function of the criminal justice system is to uphold the established laws, which define what we understand as deviant in this society.
“ ….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).
For a long time, the law enforcement agents and the judicial systems have been using the crime control and the due process models in an effort to establish and maintain justice in the society. As much as these two models operate hand in hand, they both have similarities as well as several differences in how they operate in the judicial system. They are very effective in the judicial system because they both work towards providing justice, creating a great impact in the judicial system in the society (Edkins & Kansas, 2007). However, they have variations in their approach in bringing justice to the people in the society. The reasons why at some point these two models seem to be similar is because they coil around the constitution, and the constitutional settings define their operational strategies to give comparable explanations of finding justice among the people in the society (Zalman, 2008).
One trait of adversarial legalism, formal legal contestation, greatly emphasizes the importance of procedures, rules, and the jury system. Phoebe Ellsworth, in The Social Organization of Law, highlights a number of these procedures and rules. For example, jurors cannot make autonomous inquiries during the trial, unanimity is required of the jurors, and jurors cannot look at how previous juries may have decided similar cases because juries do not leave written records. There are even rules in the evidence collecting system, like those defining the legal limits of search and seizure, tha...