Judicial systems have been used predominantly throughout the world to address disputes in various contexts, where accused criminals, to law enforcement officers and expert witnesses take part on a daily basis to resolve deputes in judicial manner (Silverman et al 2010). However, characteristics of the judicial systems differ from country/region to another, depending on the basis of the system which may cause an impact on the expert witness. As an explanation for the above statement, it could be said that legal systems fall into two systems, the adversarial system and the inquisitorial system. Conversely, a hybrid between those two systems has formed yet another system which is identified as the mixed system. These derive from historical law and judicial practices which have been practiced for a considerable amount of time, which eventually improved and standardised. Debara.K in 2002 suggested that the foundation to form a jury was based on medieval trail modes of combat where two parties argue their points to crown a champion. Jonakait (2008) concluded that by the 18th century, the legal systems developed into a stage where lawyers actively participated in English criminal trials making the legal system more “Adversary”. Paradoxically, inquisitorial system was born right after the 13th century, as a result of disbelief upon the adversarial system. Essentially, this system was formed by the French and then was horizontally transferred into few more countries which ultimately become one of the two dominant legal systems in the world (Johnson.Het al 2008).
In this short study, English legal system will be elaborated in comparison to the Italian Legal system. Prior to that, both adversarial and inquisitorial systems shall be discusse...
... middle of paper ...
...and Jones, M. (2008) History of criminal justice,4th ed. Waltham: Elsevier, p.67-70.
Jonakait, R. (2008) The rise of the American adversary system: America before England, Widner Law review, 14(1), p.656.
Koppen, J. and Penrod, S. (2003) Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice: psychological perspective on criminal justice systems, USA: Springer, p.29.
Malleson, K. (2007) the legal system, New York: Oxford University press, p.11-14.
Siegal, L. (2010) Criminology: The core, USA: Cengage learning, p.385-387.
Silverman, J. and Silverman, S. (2010) how the judicial system works, UK: A Discovery company, p.27.
Smith, S. and Langan, B. (1992) Civil jury cases and verdict in large countries, Burean of Justice statistics, - (1), p.3-10.
Wall, W. (2010) Forensic Science in courts: the role of the expert witness, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, p.2-56.
Since the airing of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and the other televised series that followed have led jurors to compare fiction with reality. The shows have changed the view on the real world of forensic science as the series have a world of forensic science of their own. For this paper the televised series titled Bones by forensic anthropologist Kathy Reichs will be used as an example for comparison. In the series Bones Dr. Temperance Brenan arrives at the scene of the crime to examine the skeletal remains found in the scene of the crime equipped with one or more forensic kits. Upon momentarily examining the skeletal remains Dr. Brenan is able to determine the gender, ethnicity, and age. When this type of scenario is compared to nonfictional
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
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.
Jost, Kenneth. "The Federal Judiciary." CQ Researcher 8.10 (1998). CQ Researcher. SAGE Publications. Web. 01 Mar. 2011. .
The United States v. Thomas J.L. Smiley et al.. (n.d) retrieved 1 February 2012, from Google Books Web Site:
Today juries are much more diverse. Men, women, and people from diverse backgrounds are called to jury duty. Although the origin of the jury system is not clear, history has shown that William the Conqueror from Normandy introduced a similar system to England around 1066 CE (Judiciary of Vermont 1). After the American Revolutionary War, the jury system became the American ideal of justice. This essay will explore the history of the American jury system and illustrate how it has evolved over the course of the American history.
Champion, D. J., Hartley, R. D., & Rabe, G. A. (2012). Criminal Courts: Structure, process, and
Stevenson, D 2012, The function of uncertainty within jury systems, George Mason Law Review, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 513-548, viewed 6 May 2014, .
For my research paper I decided to observe at the North Justice Center in Fullerton, CA for the morning session. My goal entering there was to watch the process of a criminal trial since I felt that would be the most interesting and would allow me the opportunity to witness all the working parts of our justice system in action. While waiting for the criminal trial to open its doors and start, I managed to come across a post- arraignment court, where I was able to watch a different side of our criminal justice system. This is the side that enforces the punishment and makes sure that restitution is paid for whatever crime was committed. By far the most interesting thing I took from this experience was the differences in how the judges conducted themselves in their courtrooms and the amount of discretion that they were allowed to use. For this paper I will be going over what I observed in both the post-arraignment court and the criminal trial and analyze my findings in a sociological context.
Hall, Kermit L, eds. The Oxford guide to United States Supreme Court decisions New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Forensic evidence can provide just outcomes in criminal matters. However, it is not yet an exact science as it can be flawed. It can be misrepresented through the reliability of the evidence, through nonstandard guidelines, and through public perception. Forensic science can be dangerously faulty without focus on the ‘science’ aspect. It can at times be just matching patterns based on an individual’s interpretations. This can lead to a miscarriage of justice and forever alter a person’s life due to a perceived “grey area” (Merritt C, 2010) resulting in a loss of confidence in the reliability of forensic evidence.
“ ….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).
Fairchild, H. & Cowan, G (1997). Journal of Social Issues. The O.J. Simpson Trial: Challenges to Science and Society.
Forensic Psychology, which is occasionally referred to as Legal Psychology, originally made its debut in the late 1800’s. A Harvard Professor, Professor Munsterberg, introduced the idea of psychology and law with his book, On the Witness Stand in 1908. Since the inception of the idea of psychology and law there have been proponents, as well as though that have spoken against the theories proposed by Munsterberg’s, along with other scientists, theorists, and psychologists that believed that Forensic Psychology had no standing to be linked to topics of law. This literature review will attempt to identify scholarly articles that trace the origins and the movement that led to Forensics Psychology becoming a specialty within the field of psychology. I will also attempt to explain What is Forensic Psychology as well as the part it plays within the legal system.
Forensic Science, recognized as Forensics, is the solicitation of science to law to understand evidences for crime investigation. Forensic scientists are investigators that collect evidences at the crime scene and analyse it uses technology to reveal scientific evidence in a range of fields. Physical evidence are included things that can be seen, whether with the naked eye or through the use of magnification or other analytical tools. Some of this evidence is categorized as impression evidence2.In this report I’ll determine the areas of forensic science that are relevant to particular investigation and setting out in what method the forensic science procedures I have recognized that would be useful for the particular crime scene.