logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

America's Debate Radio - 207th Live Edition: Feb 10 2010, 10:00 PM EST.
Stream or Download the newest show | Subscribe to the podcast: iTunes · RSS

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!

> Welcome to the America's Debate Archive!

Topics that have had no new replies in the last 180 days are moved to the archive.

New replies are not accepted once a topic is moved to the archive, and new topics cannot be started in the archive.

> The Adversarial System -- Good or Bad?, Would an Inquisitorial system be better?
Victoria Silverw...
post Nov 15 2003, 04:50 PM
Post #1


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,601
Member No.: 608
Joined: March-16-03

From: Chattanooga Tennessee USA
Gender: Female
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: Green Party



Is the Adversarial system used in trials in the United States -- the Defense versus the Prosecution -- better than other systems? Or would it be better to have an Inquisitorial system, in which the court plays a more active role in seeking out the truth?

Here are good introductions to the two systems:

The Adversarial System

The Inquisitorial System

Does the Inquisitorial system give the court too much power, at the expense of the defendant? Or does the Adversarial system lead to abuse of the legal system, at the expense of justice?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 6)
Platypus
post Nov 15 2003, 05:52 PM
Post #2


*******
Five Hundred Club

Sponsor
Aug. 13, 2003

Group: BANNED
Posts: 948
Member No.: 544
Joined: February-26-03

From: Lexington, MA
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: None



I generally favor an inquisitorial system. Sure, there is a potential for abuse by the court, but there are statutory safeguards and appeals processes for that in either model. The same abuses can and do occur under an adversarial system, asymmetrically favoring the side with the more skilled lawyers. In general, the adversarial system favors the wealthy, who can hire more and better lawyers, hire expert witnesses, hire private investigators, file motions and request subpoenas to create a burden on those with fixed work hours and/or limited leisure time, etc. A wealthy litigant can simply bury a poor one in paperwork, resulting in a case won on something other than its intrinsic merit.

Yes, trials under an inquisitorial system can be unfair. Trials under an adversarial system are practically guaranteed to be unfair, by design.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
johnlocke
post Nov 16 2003, 11:58 PM
Post #3


*******
Five Hundred Club

Group: Members
Posts: 677
Member No.: 709
Joined: May-4-03

From: To Your Right.
Gender: Male
Politics: Very Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



I like the Adversarial System much better for the same reason Platypus likes the Inquisitional System.

I think that it would be much easier to bribe judges than to bog people down and spend them out of court or into jail. That's just my opinion, but even after you do all the things like hire better lawyers, expert testimony, PI's etc. you still have to have a convincing story, whereas in my opinion it would just be easier to pay off a judge or "Inquisitor" to rule your way over the whole thing, which as I stated previosly, would be easier to do.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KnightOfEpsilon
post Jan 30 2004, 02:43 AM
Post #4


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 2,302
Joined: January-30-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



What about the involvement of a jury? That's a key characteristic of the adversary system, right? In a jury trial, the lawyers try to convince the jury, NOT the judge. In an inquisitorial system with no jury and only one person calling the shots (the judge), 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.

Also, by having a trial by jury, you essentially have a broader spectrum of people deciding the case, as opposed to the lone judge. The jury's role prevents the single-mindedness, and maybe even recklessness, of the judge if he/she were given authority to decide the case.

On that note, it's no wonder why the United States Supreme Court is a panel of NINE JUSTICES, remarkably resembling a jury. True, the Chief Justice holds a higher tier than the other eight justices, but the point is that no one person is in control of the Supreme Court.

Btw, I'm a high school senior researching the adversary vs. inquisitorial issue for the "We the People" National Civic Education Competition. Do you think my viewpoint is well-justified?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugo
post Jan 30 2004, 05:14 AM
Post #5


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,584
Member No.: 362
Joined: December-28-02

From: Houston
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Theoretically the adverserial system provides more protection for the defendant. The prosecutors office is suppossed to be seeking justice ahile the defense lawyer is representing the defendant. Unfortunately many times the prosecutor seems more interested in getting a guilty verdict than seeing justice is served.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CruisingRam
post Jan 30 2004, 07:04 AM
Post #6


**********
Elite Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 6,445
Member No.: 927
Joined: July-25-03

Gender: Male
Politics: Independent
Party affiliation: Libertarian



I would like to see a hybird system personally- with some punishments for the prosecutors and judges for bad-faith behaviors. I also like the idea of a Hienliens "fair witness" idea- a person that works for neither side but simply attempts to state facts that they see. (I am a big Hienlien fan, and though I frequently don't agree with his extremism, I like some of his base ideas) I would like to see the removal of the 5th amendment, but with some checks and balances. I would like to have the current adversary system, but the public defender must be given the same budget as the prosecutor, with an entire anti-police force, basically a type of public investigator that investigates the procedure and logic of the police. This would be a great check to prosecutor and police wrongdoing and lazy behavior, plus would find a lot of the errors in the capital murder cases that make the best argument against the death penalty, a very good one at that.

I would like to see a set of questions that are debated by the prosecutor and the defender must debate on to make sure they are not "leading" questions or infer guilt just by the question "is this the first time you have been pregnant, yes or no" and you ask this question of a man, he is wrong either way LOL- but no way NOT to answer them, no "I take the fifth"- and taking the fifth is an admission of guilt.

I have had some time to think about this sitting in court with defendents LOL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kerry4prez
post Apr 26 2004, 03:25 AM
Post #7


*
New Member

Group: New Members
Posts: 1
Member No.: 2,984
Joined: April-26-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Liberal
Party affiliation: Libertarian



your viewpoint is completely justified...can you imagine a system in which a <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=single&v=55">single</a> man has complete power to determine justice...it is completely unjust...

Just consider a few statistics...

The french department of justice found that a far greater number of convictions were later over tunrned in their system (2.3 percent of the time) than in our system (0.17 percent of the time). Inquisitorial judges are biased...and with no one to check their powers they are allowed to be.

This issue is being presented in front of the french constitutional court in a few months...you may want to look into that

btw..what is the "We the People" National Civic <a href="http://www.ntsearch.com/search.php?q=Education&v=55">Education</a> Competition and is there anything more i can do to help?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: February 9th, 2010 - 03:42 PM
©2002-2006 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.