0
Adversarial, its working how it is already and after going to the courts today and doing some observations, i find the adversarial court system to be effective. Although within Australian society the use of the adversarial system is not seen as a prominent risk to our political and legal systems, there are a myriad of ramifications of using such a system. Following a study conducted by the "Australian institute of criminology" John Walker estimated that the Adversarial system costs the tax payer $6 Billion a year on legal expenses such as representation for those unable to foot the bill themselves. Under the rules of the adversarial system, parties are aloud to select evidence they would like to put fourth in court. As a result not all evidence is presented, therefore judging a case can be difficult, subsequently verdicts can be erroneous - having a myriad of ramifications in its own sense. Being a system designed in the 18th Centaury, many argue that many or its features are outdated, and irrelevant in modern society, therefore the system should be reformed. For example, the well known "right to remain silent" was integrated into the system in the 18th centaury to stop people being tortured into giving incriminating evidence. Under modern laws, does the system still play its part? Australia needs to reform its legal system. Critics of Our current system argue that the adversarial system is outdated and crawling with loop holes and quandaries, that are far past a point where resolution is the key. However its supporters argue that implication of the inquisitorial system would bring about a myriad of issued within society contradicting laws that have been in place for years. What about the involvement of a jury? That's a key characteristic of the adversary system, and should not be over looked. In an inquisitorial system with no jury and only one person calling the shots the defendant is at a huge disadvantage. The burden of proof falls solely on the defendant, who has to prove to the judge that he/she is not guilty. I believe that the implication of a hybrid system or Heinlein's fair witness theory will have much greater impact than a removal of the adversarial system itself. The idea- a person that works for neither side but simply attempts to state facts that they see, will not only promote fairness and equality throughout courts, but enable a resolution to many of the adversarial systems flaws.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is the difference of adversarial system to inquisitorial system?
Inquisitorial system= when judge plays the role as a fact finder. To ascertain the truth. Adversarial system= its all about fight (two opposite sides), when judge tries to remain impartial
What is an adversarial system?
The Adversarial System is the justice system that is used in countries like Australia, Britain, and America. It relies on a contest between each of the advocates (speaker) representing his or her party's positions and involves an impartial person or group of people, usually a judge or jury, who try to determine the truth of the case. The adversarial system is normally used in common law countries. An exception, for instance in the US, may be made for minor violations, such as traffic offences.. The adversarial system is the two-sided structure where criminal trial courts operate and put the prosecution against the defence. The case is won when either party has been able to convince the judge and jury that their view is correct.
Is Radio Data System used in Australia?
Yes Refer to http://www.sutcliffetech.com.au/rdsinfo.htm
What weather system might be occurring if Australia is experiencing a drought and south America is flooding?
El Nino
What was PlayStation 3's starting price?
The ps3 cost about $500 for the 40 GB system and $600 For the 60 GB system In Australia when It first hit cost $1,000
How did the adversarial system begin to be used in Australia?
The adversarial system is inherently a trait of the common law system of England. Australia is member of the Commonwealth and was settled by the British Empire. When this occurred Australia automatically inherited British law under the doctrine of reception. So, to answer the question, the adversarial system has been used in Australia since British settlement in 1788. This is opposed to the inquisitorial system arising from Roman law and ancestry.
What alternatives to the adversarial system can you envision?
I guess the alternative would be the inquisitorial system, used mostly in continental Europe. The system in the USA is the adversarial system, where the lawyers from both sides run the show. In the inquisitorial system, the judges are much more involved at trials, and ask most of the questions.
What is the explanation for the adversarial system and inquisitorial system?
The adversarial system is a legal system where two opposing parties present their case before an impartial judge or jury. In the inquisitorial system, the judge plays a more active role in investigating and presenting evidence to reach a verdict. The adversarial system is more common in common law countries like the United States, while the inquisitorial system is found in civil law countries like France and Germany.
What is the difference between an inquisitorial system and an adversarial system?
The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.
What is the difference of adversarial system to inquisitorial system?
Inquisitorial system= when judge plays the role as a fact finder. To ascertain the truth. Adversarial system= its all about fight (two opposite sides), when judge tries to remain impartial
Differences between inquisitorial and adversarial system?
The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries
What are the distinguishing factors between inquisitorial and adversarial system?
The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.
Is there a plaintiff in the inquisitorial system of justice?
In the inquisitorial system of justice, there is typically no distinction between a plaintiff and a prosecutor as seen in the adversarial system. Instead, the judge oversees the investigation and collection of evidence, with input from both the prosecution and defense.
What is the differences between the adversarial system and the inquisitorial systems of trial?
The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.
What system of law uses an inquisitorial method?
The inquisitorial method is typically used in civil law systems, where the judge takes an active role in investigating the case and gathering evidence. This differs from common law systems, which rely more on the adversarial method where parties present their case to an impartial judge or jury.
In a paragraph compare the American Adversarial court system to the European Inquisitorial style?
The American Adversarial court system is characterized by two opposing parties presenting their cases to a neutral judge and jury, with a focus on advocacy and an emphasis on the truth emerging through the clash of arguments. In contrast, the European Inquisitorial system involves a judge actively investigating the case, gathering evidence, and questioning witnesses to determine the truth. This approach places more responsibility on the judge to seek out the facts of the case, rather than relying solely on the arguments presented by opposing parties.
What is different between inquisitorial system and adverserial system?
The judge has a passive role in the adversary system and an active one in the inquisitorial. The counsel has an active role in the adversary and a passive role in the inquisitorial. In adversary, the burden of proof rests on the accuser whereas in the inquisitorial the burden of proof rests on noone. Adversary systems can have juries.
