The Adversarial System (1 Viewer)

[Melzy_738]

Hi everyone im having a bit of trouble with this question for my assessment-

"Evaluate the effectiveness of the adversarial system in achieving justice in criminal trials"

If anyone has any information or web sites I could visit, i would greatly appreciate any help!!! thnx mel

 

[melsc]

i may be able to dig up my old assignment...cant 2night...exams 2morrows

 

[Jonathan A]

Hi everyone im having a bit of trouble with this question for my assessment-

"Evaluate the effectiveness of the adversarial system in achieving justice in criminal trials"

If anyone has any information or web sites I could visit, i would greatly appreciate any help!!! thnx mel

I would myself argue its a great system

However your best option is also to refer to other systems, probably the civil law inquisitorial system which seeks the truth with a judge being the investigator.

In our system use lawyers to argue the facts and law. The advantage is a person accussed has the right to argue against their accussor, to the extent they are on an equal footing with them.

 

[goan_crazy]

i can help u...
ok the adversarial system of trial is the system of trial common law countries use ie. australia
the two sides present their case b4 a neutral arbitrator in a court room
there is an independent judge and jury

heres some points you may like 2 discuss:
o Time delays
o Often involves high costs
o Wealthy can gain better legal representation
o Costs are high
o Tries to find someone guilty rather than determine all the circumstances and other possible offenders.

hope that helps!

 

[pig_93]

joe knows whats going on
he's like addicted to this thread
legal sucks!

my advice is exactly what joe's is. but dont forget to compare it to the inquisitaorial system cos that...
well it will be good!!!

 

[goan_crazy]

and the inquisitiorial system is the law used in civil law countries such as germany, france etc
judge plays a more active role
remember effectiveness as well
see my effectiveness thread
http://www.boredofstudies.org/community/showthread.php?t=64346
hope iv been a help

joe

 

[= Jennifer =]

another country inquistorial system is used in is indonesia...a good idea is to watch the news and see corbey's case so u have some visual idea when u go in the exam


edit: i just realised i did not answer your question, although this may help for half yearlies, trials, hsc

 

[manifestation]

"Evaluate the effectiveness of the adversarial system in achieving justice in criminal trials"

The adversary system is the system used in Australia, which aims to achieve justice. Here opposing parties give their side of the case before an independent third party who, based on the evidence put forward during the trial, decides on the outcome of the case. The burden of proof id placed on the prosecution and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Features of the adversary system are:
- A contest between two parties
- Independent judge and jury
- Finality of the judges decisions, unless subject to appeal
- The presumption that all are equal before the court.

In the adversary system the procedures and rules of evidence are designed to give each side equal opportunity to present their case. Although the adversary system’s role is to provide justice, an accurate verdict and emphasis on procedural rules designed to ensure that the contest between the parties is a fair fight, but there has been criticism of the system. Some problems that support the argument of criticism of the system are:

Efficiency:
- The delays in cases coming to the court or the postponement of the cases. This is a flaw in the system as lengthy delays in cases coming to court, find the victims have trouble remembering every detail of their ordeals. (e.g. R v Skaf)
- The enormous costs of the state
- The increasing costs faced by the accused in defending their innocence.

Equality:
- The discrimination that exists within the system, which may be seen to favor the wealthy. Legal costs are expensive and therefore not everyone is able to afford it.
- The discrimination it has in balancing the rights of society, the victim and the accused. How to satisfy everyone and come up with a just outcome.
And the overall argument that the pursuit of winning often overshadows the search for truth, and equalities between the parties in resources and the abilities of the legal representatives may distort the outcomes of the adversarial system.

[And then always at the end of any evaluate question make your judgment based on the points you’ve argued]



HOPE IT HELPS MATEY!!!

 

[Melzy_738]

Thank You!!!

Thanks for all your help everyone it is greatly appreciated! Im so glad that you were all able to give me some more info on the adversarial system and inquisitorial system thanks again Mel

 

[Jonathan A]

Don't usually do this but here is an extract from my assignment last year in the unit: Corporate Investigations. My task was to write a paper on issues in gathering evidence. One of those issues is the adervsarial system of trial as seen here:


Adversarial system of trial
A significant influence in the collection of evidence is how it may be used in adjudication, especially where allegations are disputed before the courts. Australia being a Common Law country utilises the adversarial system of trial in the presentation of evidence. According to Brogan (1995), there are three elements that distinguish the adversarial system: ‘adjudication by a neutral tribunal’, disputing parties organise ‘preparations and presentations’ of their case and that there are ‘structured’ rules of procedure governing the adjudication (p712). In practice, this will mean that the applicant will make an allegation against the respondent before an impartial arbitrator, with the respondent defending themselves against the allegation. The arbitrator does not conduct any investigation, instead relies on the parties to present facts in accordance with rules of procedure. As Lord Denning MR stated in Jones v National Coal Board [1957] 2 QB 55, the judge ‘sits to hear and determine issues … not to conduct an investigation’ and their decision must be based on that evidence alone (cited in Maxwell, p4). The onus of proof usually lays with the applicant to present evidence to back his/her allegation under the set standard of proof, which is dependant on the type of case. A thorough investigation is necessary to establish the facts of a case. As Osterburg and Ward (1997) state, ‘the same information used by the criminalist (investigator) to reconstruct the crime (through evidence) serves to answer the defence counsel’s questions at trial’ (p67). The adversarial system places an emphasis on sworn oral evidence presented by witnesses or in affidavits (Isaacs, 2001: p2). Investigators should, as apart of collecting evidence seek witnesses to provide weight to the elements of the allegation and whom are also ‘competent’ and ‘compellable’ to give evidence in accordance with s12 of the Evidence Act.

 

[singhn]

hi everyone! umm i am new to this but i came across this forum as i was googling for the exact same qn as melzy has!! so i was wondering for all of u...if i could borrow some of the hints you gave to melzy?? if any of you don't want me to, its cool but boy do u knoe your legal!!!!

luvya Nat

 

[Paj20]

hey.
i have a similar q for an assignment.
" evaluate the effectivness of the adversial system for the individual, the victim and society"
I'm completly stuck.
Can anyone help me out ?
=]

your not even doing HSC lol?

 

[SimonLee13]

Negative features include
2 polar versions of the truth
different levels of skill in legal representation
aim is to "win" and not to uncover the truth

 

[lewis99]

To talk about the adversarial system, think about its opposite, the inquisitorial system used in civil law system as a guide. Advesarial system has certain rules aout the conduct of adversaries in court, the way they introduce evidence (hearsay, character evidence), the opportunity to have examination in chief, cross examination and re-examination during the trial. The fact that the defendant goes last affords the accused the right to address all evidence placed below the court as the finding is to their disadvantage (eg fine, criminal charges, imprisonment).

Hope this helps.

 

[alex991]

To talk about the adversarial system, think about its opposite, the inquisitorial system used in civil law system as a guide. Advesarial system has certain rules aout the conduct of adversaries in court, the way they introduce evidence (hearsay, character evidence), the opportunity to have examination in chief, cross examination and re-examination during the trial. The fact that the defendant goes last affords the accused the right to address all evidence placed below the court as the finding is to their disadvantage (eg fine, criminal charges, imprisonment).

Hope this helps.

WTF are u one about aha... basically the adversarial system means that there exists the adversary... like the apendix of a book... there exists a life that has no real ability to feel good about themselves... there is a group within society that are restrained, under precedent and doctrines... therefore the adversary is a defernate change in the social structure... i.e. it is the stuff that makes up the apple pie

 

[Mikeyyy23]

I'm struggling to find relevant cases for this one. Any ideas? apart from the Corby one.