The adversarial system pertains to a law system that relies on the talents and capabilities of its promoters. These individuals are known to uphold their particular party’s standpoint and not based on a group that follows a neutral stand. One example of a body that upholds a neutral stand is the judge and such stance is necessary when this individual needs to establish the truth regarding a particular case. The law system is employed in the United States. On the other hand, the inquisitorial system pertains to a law system that conducts an investigation to determine the truth of a particular case.
In this setting, the investigation is conducted by at least one to several judges who work together in order to ascertain the precise details of a case and come out with the truth. The inquisitorial system is employed in European countries such as Germany. This system also follows the belief that lawyers should be asked of their willingness to represent an individual who they perceive as guilty (Goodman 498). Such verification of the lawyers stand is very important because in the inquisitorial system, deception is a grave violation of the law.
It is thus crucial that the lawyer himself feels comfortable enough to proceed with his actions in the investigation and in the court in order to succeed in his goal of defending his client, who at that moment is accused of a certain crime. The inquisitorial law system does not believe that a lawyer can defend any individual because there is always the concept of deception that needs to be maintained within the system. At the same time, the lawyer representing the accused suspect is expected to present and defend his client to the best of his ability during court hearings.
In addition, any information that is important to the investigation should be presented in court. The inquisitorial system also provides the setting that the accused individual need not present any evidence during court hearings. In addition, the system also provides the accused and his lawyer a choice of whether the prosecutor or the judge assigned may ask questions that are pertinent to the case. The inquisitorial system thus allows the accused individual to make us of his right to keep quiet when questioned or cross-examined by a prosecutor or a judge.
During court hearings, the only information that can influence the decision of the jury is thus based on what they have received during questioning during the court hearing. In most of the cases, the defending lawyer thus protects his client from being cross-examined and thus not all information may be revealed because of such protection. There may also be some kind of manipulation of the information that may be relevant in the investigation of the case. I think the adversarial law system is better because it allows a prosecutor to cross-examine an accused individual in court.
It is not advisable to proceed with a decision if an accused exercises his right to silence because this allows the accused from keeping critical and crucial details that may be important in the examination of the case. However, I support a part of the concept of the inquisitorial law system wherein a court asks a lawyer if he is willing to represent an individual who is perceived to be guilty of a crime. I think this is very important because there are often times some lawyers who will attempt to defend his client in court yet he himself is not convinced that his client is innocent.
Such stance in some of these lawyers is quite disappointing because we would like to perceive lawyers as defenders of the law yet there are particular instances when lawyers themselves can not be trusted anymore because they would defend a client in order to earn a professional fee but in their hearts they do not believe in the accused individual himself. However, as a whole, I believe that the adversarial law system is still better because it allows cross-examination and questioning of the accused during court and there is not chance for the accused to exercise his right of silence and has to entirely tell the truth in court.