INQUISITORIAL SYSTEM

[Michael_dunks]

I am confused; are the judges responsible to investigate in civil trials as well? Wouldn't that be stupid becauase companies who want to sue each other would have a judge collecting all the evidence?

Also, when evaluating the role of the judge, would it be acceptable to say that they may be less objective than a judge in the adversary system? I know you can't say they're biased, but would a point which stated that judges are not independent be accepted? Should I stray away from this point?

[meganrobyn]

I am confused; are the judges responsible to investigate in civil trials as well? Wouldn't that be stupid becauase companies who want to sue each other would have a judge collecting all the evidence?

Also, when evaluating the role of the judge, would it be acceptable to say that they may be less objective than a judge in the adversary system? I know you can't say they're biased, but would a point which stated that judges are not independent be accepted? Should I stray away from this point?

The trial judge doesn't investigate the case in either criminal or civil. In both instances the parties investigate the facts and present a dossier of evidence and arguments to the trial judge pre-trial. In criminal cases the prosecution party is the police, and they are led by a separate judge called an investigating magistrate.

I agree that it's a big call to say they're *not* independent, but I absolutely think you can say the greater involvement may reduce objectivity - or, at the very least, the appearance of objectivity.