Adversarial System vs Inquisitorial System Essay

Adversarial System vs Inquisitorial System - Essay Example They state that after one side of the proceedings wins the case, there is always a sense of closure for those who have been involved in the case. Moreover, it is always rare to find anyone who has any grievance concerning how the proceedings took place, because they believe that justice has been done. On the other hand, the proponents of the inquisitorial judicial system often state that this system is more suitable because it caters for social change as well as ensuring the creation of an efficient policy for court proceedings. This creates an environment where cases are dealt with swiftly and efficiently, and because the court has a hand in the investigations, it is a rare thing for false evidence to be presented. Moreover, the inquisitorial proceedings help ensure that the cost of legal proceedings remains low, because the court caters for the expenditure of the investigations being carried out (Ringnalda 120). When one closely considers these systems, one would say that the inqui sitorial system is more efficient in dealing with cases than adversarial system. In this paper, we shall analyze both of these systems and their application in various situations, assessing their strengths and weaknesses. The adversarial system is a judicial system that involves two opposing parties being represented by advocates, who defend the position of these parties before a group of people who are considered objective. In most of the cases handled under an adversarial system, the divergent parties present their cases before a judge for arbitration. This system is quite different from the inquisitorial system, where a judge, or a group of them, has a direct hand in the investigation of the cases, which have been brought before them. This is an advantage over the inquisitorial system because in such a system, there is always likelihood that the judge may be impartial in making decisions concerning the case. Consequently, the judge may end up making a decision in favor of the par ty to which he or she is partial. This is not the case in an adversarial system because the purpose of the judge is to listen to the proceedings and make a balanced decision based on the evidence presented by the parties involved. In this system, it does not matter which side is correct as long as the evidence presented gives an advantage to one party. The adversarial system is used in almost every country that practices common law, although there are exceptions in some instances, especially where the common law cannot be applied. This system has a structure of two sides, one dedicated to the defense, while the other is dedicated to the prosecution. The structure operates in a way that puts the defense against the prosecution, and the side that is able to make the more convincing argument ends up winning the case. This structure is set up in a way that justice is only achieved when the side with the best argument wins, despite the fact that the side that wins may be in the wrong. Th erefore, it is the task either of both the defense and the prosecution to convince a judge or in some cases a jury, that they are right. It is for the jury to decide which side has given a more convincing argument, and come up with a verdict (â€Å"Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems†). This is not the case in an inquisitorial system, because the parties involved might feel that they are at the mercy of the judge presiding over the case. Such a situation would make these parties not to be confident in the legal proceedings. They might feel that the judge might not have their best interests at heart when making decisions. Another advantage which the adversarial sys