Hello friends.
Evaluate my evaluation please Pretty much made this question up, let's say 10 marks. Will do a few more.
Compare the adversary system to the inquisitorial system and through this, evaluate the effectiveness of the adversarial system of trial.
The adversary system of trial is where parties aim to win a case in front of an impartial, independent arbiter, and is the system primarily used in Australia. The inquisitorial system is an alternative system of trial where the judge leads an inquiry on a case to ensure the truth emerges.
The adversarial and inquisitorial systems of trial differ in terms of the roles of the parties. In the adversarial system, there is ‘party control’ whereby parties investigate the proceedings and facts of a case and decide which facts are to be brought before the court. The inquisitorial system does not have this in place and instead parties respond to the court. Party control can be seen as a strength of the adversarial system as it allows them to feel in control of the situation and thus responsible for the outcome of the trial. It ensures a competitive spirit and a person who has an opportunity to fight for their case is more likely to be satisfied with the outcome. However, by having parties compete a sense of animosity can arise instead of peacefully resolving an issue. Moreover, the fact that parties decide which evidence is called up means that vital evidence may not be seen as it does not necessarily aid that party’s case, even though it is relevant to the trial.
Another difference between the two systems is the role of the judge. In the adversary system, the judge must act as an impartial umpire and cannot favour either side. They ensure the rules of evidence and procedure are followed. In the inquisitorial system the judge has a more active role as they lead the inquiry and decide what evidence is to be called up. The role of the judge in the adversary system ensures that a trial is fair as they enforce the rules of evidence and procedure. However, it does not utilise a judge’s expertise to their full extent as they must remain impartial throughout proceedings. The inquisitorial system makes better use of a judge’s skills and expertise but in doing so, potentially reduces the unbiased nature of a judge and may make a trial unfair.
In the adversary system, legal representation is necessary due to the complex and competitive nature. Whilst party control dictates that individuals can decide whether or not they have representation, the rules of evidence and procedure can be confusing. The need for legal representation ensures that the parties have the opportunity to present their best possible case. The inquisitorial system does not rely on legal representation and it may even be disallowed in some circumstances. Legal representation instead plays a more advisory role as the judge leads proceedings. A weakness of legal representation is that it is highly costly and the party that can afford better and more skilled lawyers may have an advantage.
The two systems also differ in terms of rules of evidence and procedure. The adversarial system has strict rules that promote consistency and that all parties are treated alike. Similarly, the reliance on oral evidence allows mechanism to decide on the sincerity of witnesses through cross-examination. However, this can lengthen the course of a case, especially as witnesses can lead to delays. The inquisitorial system relies on written evidence and has no formal standard of proof and less stringent rules of procedure. However, unlike in the adversarial system, this cannot be cross-examined. As such, whilst the adversarial system may have greater delays through this, evidence is analysed more thoroughly and party’s rights are better enforced through the rules.
The adversarial system of trial differs from the inquisitorial system in terms of the role of the judge and parties, the rules of evidence and procedure and whether or not legal representation is necessary. The former’s rigid rules of evidence, party control, unbiased nature of judges and necessity of legal representation may lead to lengthy and costly trials, but they ensure a fair hearing.
I just skimmed, it's quite good. I'll go through thoroughly now and comment on things as i go read it:
okay, just a small fyi type thing, the extended response on the exam will be a critical evaluation, not just an evaluation.
Im going to talk about paragraphs not including intro (para 1 is the first body paragraph)
in your first paragraph, you've kind of compared, then forgotten about the inquisitorial system. The question says "through this", and even if it didn't, a question regarding both the inquis. and advers. system comparison AND evaluation implies that it's looking for an evaluation through the comparison. Don't just state a difference/similarity, then evaluate the adversary system alone. Keep coming back to the comparison. for example, at the end of the first paragraph, add a little line to it like 'this contrasts with the inquis. system of trial, where animosity is less likely as the judge mainly conducts the trial, and all evidence is considered, ensuring a greater chance of justice being served".
don't forget you need to keep coming back to whether justice can be served easily or if it's hindered, because that's the purpose of a trial (even though it's not really spoken about in textbooks) always come back to serving justice.
also just a little thing, don't use "ensures a competitive spirit" as a strength. It's not a strength. it's just something that happens and can be taken as either good or bad depending on who you are. it's not worth mentioning there are other things you can say.
end the second paragraph with something going back to adversary evaluation, like "The inquisitorial system makes better use of a judge’s skills and expertise through his/her active role. In this respect the adversary system can be seen as disadvantageous, however this aspect of the inquis trial potentially reduces the unbiased nature of a judge and may make a trial unfair - a strength of the adversary trial where fairness is strictly enforced'
third para, again, don't just compare, then forget about what you compared and just say "a weakness of legal rep...". you've just explained something- use that to evaluate, and don't forget you're evaluating the adversary system, not legal representation. fixing this is as simple as saying, instead of "a weakness of legal rep...", maybe "this is a weakness of the advers system because legal rep is costly etc..."
your 4th paragraph only has one flaw i can see - after the word "cross-examination", you should include some reference to the effectiveness, like "... -a great strength of the system". then "however, this strength is somewhat diminished as it can lengthen..."
you're conclusion is redundant. it is a waste. unlike english, you don't have to summarise what you said. a much much better way to end is to focus on the evaluation side of it. a short 1-2 sentences after the first fraction of what you already have about them being different (just before you get into how - "..in terms of..") instead of the bit including and following "in terms of...", start a new sentence and make a conclusive statement about how "while the adversary system is flawed, and while these flaws are often strong points of the inquis system, the adversarial trial is still ultimately effective, as it's strengths overshadow its limitations"
i'd give it about a 7 or so. you're content is all there, you just need to reword things to answer the question more explicitly. and remember, any question where there's explain/define/list AND evaluate, the main part of it is the evaluate.