Adversary system extended response

[Shaye]

My teacher marked me a 7/10 for this response. Just wondering how I could improve to get the 10/10 that I would like

It's from the 2006 exam, Q13b (http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/Documents/exams/legalstudies/2006legal-w.pdf)

‘Our adversary system of trial works very well. It cannot be improved.’ Discuss this statement and indicate to which extent you agree or disagree with it. Justify your conclusions.                         (10 marks)

Our adversary system of trial is very effective in resolving court cases however improvements can still be made.

The adversary system of trial allows parties to have full control of their case. This includes whether to bring proceedings, the gathering and presentation of evidence and whether to have legal representation or not. This contributes to the effective operation of the adversary system of trial as it will give parties satisfaction if they feel they are in control of the situation, knowing that they have done all they can to present their case in the best possible light. It also means that parties can prepare their case independent of the State that is prosecuting them. This control can also be a disadvantage however as parties can choose to withhold evidence that may not be favourable to their case, but through examination and cross-examination of evidence, the truth should emerge resulting in a fair trial.

For the adversary system to operate effectively both parties need to be legally represented. Because parties have a legal expert acting on their behalf, the case will be presented in an objective and logical manner. Legal representation also ensures fairness as each party has the opportunity to present their side of the facts in an expert manner. A trial may be unfair however if one party cannot afford legal representation, are ineligible for legal assistance or their legal expert is inexperienced and this would place that party at a severe disadvantage during the course of the trial. 

Another feature of the adversary system that contributes to its effectiveness are the strict rules of evidence and procedure. The rules determine what evidence can be led in trial and how it must be presented: they are in place for the protection of both parties. As both parties are subject to the same strict rules during the trial, it ensures fairness and equality before the law. The inadmissibility of some evidence such as hearsay and prior convictions, can lead to parts of the truth remaining supressed. This however means that the case will only be judged on reliable evidence and results in a fairer trial.

During a trial, a judge or magistrate will preside over the court proceedings acting as an independent and impartial umpire to ensure both parties follow these rules of evidence and procedure. As the adjudicator has no prior association with either of the parties, they will be able to judge the case purely on its merits and the evidence presented rather than preconceived biases. The judge will rule on matters of law, decide on the admissibility of evidence, direct the jury and decide the sanction in criminal cases. This means that the judge’s experience and expertise are not fully utilised in the court room however and there are room for improvements in this area.

One possible reform the adversary system of trial is to increase the investigative powers for the adjudicator. This could include extending their powers so they can call on and question witnesses ensuring their expertise are being more utilised in the court room. A more involved judge may lose some of their impartiality in this process but overall would result in a more effective legal system.

Ultimately, the adversarial nature of our trial system works very well but there are still room for improvements.

[Shaye]

I structured my response around this plan:

1 mark - intro
approx 7 marks - arguement (4 features + their strengths and weaknesses)
1 mark - possible reform
1 mark - conclusion

[meganrobyn]

You definitely haven't done anything *wrong* - it all reads really well. But... to make it better:

1. It's too short for a 10-marker. The best ones use the third page of writing.

2. You've glossed over your weaknesses in most paragraphs; more could be made of them.

3. The reform is a little brief, and could be integrated more into the strengths and weaknesses discussion relevant to it earlier.

4. Multiple strengths could be brought out for some of the features, rather than mainly just one.

5. You need to hide your structure a bit. It is a good structure, but right now it just sounds very "opinion, S/W, opinion"; that should be an underlying skeleton that makes the whole answer coherent but isn't immediately visible. Needs to feel more spontaneous.

6. Try to make the evaluation sound more integrated with your opinion. Link back to the overall argument more so it doesn't sound token at the start and end.

[Tomw2]

6. Try to make the evaluation sound more integrated with your opinion. Link back to the overall argument more so it doesn't sound token at the start and end.

Agreed. In the prose it is the frequent use of "however" as a sentence anchor at the end of each paragraph. Try using other expressions (not arbitrarily though), e.g. "Despite such strengths, it has been argued that...etc".

Also, "A more involved judge may lose some of their impartiality in this process but overall would result in a more effective legal system" needed to be expanded upon - it wasn't fully justified.

[Shaye]

Thanks for the feedback! I'll add more detail and depth to my responses (don't know how I'll manage this under a time limit in the exam!)
and I'll continually link my paragraphs back to my contention. Plus I'll expand further on all key points (reforms)

Thanks again

Ps, could you offer any advice on how to manage time in the exam? The depth required will be a struggle given time constraints