Adversarial system

What court system is better: adversarial or inquisitorial? It is, indeed, a very good question. Most of the countries in the world use inquisitorial court system; Others, USA for example, use adversarial system. Both are great but personally I think that inquisitorial court system is better. It over goes the adversarial court system because it actually relies on true facts and witnesses rather than victims words and lawyers. As stated above the court system in the United States is an example of one that is adversarial. In an adversarial system, there are generally three distinct parties in criminal and civil matters.

There are the two opposing sides, in which one is often the accused and the other is the accuser. Then there is the decision maker, who is generally a judge or jury. Under the modern system, legal proceedings usually involve the opposing parties approaching matters in a competitive way. Each of the adversaries is given an opportunity to present arguments and evidence that supports its claims. The adversaries are generally also given the opportunity to question one another which is the main difference between two court systems.

In inquisitorial court system the judge conducting the trial, determines what questions to ask and defines the scope of the case under a highly structured and rigid code of rules. Witnesses are heard, and the accused, who is represented by counsel, may also be heard, though he is not required to speak and, if he does, he is not put under oath. In Germany, for example, the prosecution participates in the investigation; while in France the prosecution presents its recommendations only at the end of the hearing.

In both France and Germany the investigating magistrate will recommend a trial only if he is sure that there is sufficient evidence of guilt. At the trial itself the judge, once more, assumes a direct role, conducting the examination of witnesses, often basing his questions on the material in the dossier. Neither the prosecution nor the defense has the right to cross-examine, but they can present effective summations which can later on be a game winner for that particular party. Personally I think that inquisitorial court system is a lot better but ,however, it does have disadvantages attached to it.

Those disadvantages are: first-the parties may feel at the mercy of the investigating judge; second-the parties are not able to call own experts which may help their case; third- there is greater reliance on written evidence; fourth and most important disadvantage is that the judge is aware of character reports and past records of each parties which affects the final call by a ton. Eventhough adversarial court system is useful in many ways, it is not being practiced in many countries,however inquisitorial one is.

If inquisitorial court system is not as good as adversarial system then why is it still being used in 86% of the world? The point is that inquisitorial system uses the judge/decision maker in order to come up with a statement/solution rather than relying on lawyers and both accuser and accused parties theories about the incident as it is being used in adversarial court system. As europeans like to say, “The judge is always right” and being part of that culture I can proudly say the same thing and in my eyes the inquisitorial court system is the best. Hands down.