differences b/w adversery trial and inquisitorial trial system.

[hard]

my text book, making and braking the law, has very little about this. Can anyone supply some notes on this? that would be helpful. thanks

[xox.happy1.xox]

Yuck, I hate that book, I have the same one.

Well, back in year 11, we had done heaps on the differences between the adversary and inquisitorial system.

Basically, the main difference between them is that within the adversary system, the judge acts as an unbiased, impartial umpire, whose main role is to observe all actions made in the court, and overall, allow for a smooth and free-flowing system of trial. In the inquisitorial system, the judge has a more active role to play in the function of the courtroom. They may interfere with the flowing movement of trial at any time, and hence, don't allow many parties to really exemplify their main points to the extent they usually would than if they were to function under the adversary system.

Another prominent fact to consider about the adversary and inquisitorial systems is that with the adversary system of trial, many trials usually have many different periods where pauses are usually administered, in order to gather more evidence, or to question other witnesses outside of court. With the inquisitorial system, many of the witnesses and legal representation are usually fatigued as this system does not allow for pause periods, and only ceases when the case has had a verdict established.

A third prominent difference between both systems is the adversary system carries a significant weakness in that most of the people present in their juries are very reclusive to most of the evidence being presented by the different types of legal representation. They may not understand such complex evidence being presented, and hence, may be persuaded by 'good' barristers, who have a very engaging quality about them. In the inquisitorial system, a jury is not usually present, and effectively, the judge is the final one making the verdict. The judge would at least have some prior knowledge to what the strict, professional evidence involved, and hence, would make a more practical decision than a jury who have no prior knowledge to the issue at hand.

Yay, I remembered some stuff! I hope this helps you, you deserve it.

[dusty_girl1144]

this has a very high potential of being a "10mark" question on the exam as it has high amounts of information to basically spit out. im pretty sure if i remember doing this maybe a week ago. it would mean compare in terms of "features". so you'd want to compare the differences between the adversary system and inquisitorial system in terms of the "features" start by looking back at each features in the adversary system. the features being

- role of the judge
- role of the party
- the role of legal rep
- burden and standard of proof
- rules of evidence and procedure

significant differnces is that in the inqusitorial system:


the role of the judge
-takes more of an active role
- objective is to find the truth
-calls and questions witnesses
-assists in investigating case, defining issues, gathering evidence.
in the adversary system:
keep order, directs jury,answers to questions on a point of law, responsible for sanctioning, impartial judicator, makes sure it runs according to rules of evidence and procedure.

Role of the party
-is greatly reduced in that they obtain the help by the judge in the investigation. there is no "win lose" situation. its a "win win" situation as the objective is to find the truth. and most of the work is left up to the judge. where as in adversary. they have to prepare their own case,decide what evidence to present and parties have FULL control over their case. so their case is put in the best light possible.

this is also the same with role of legal rep
they have a lesser role as they also assist in finding out of the truth and can include themselves by questioning the witness further and in more depth. in the adversary system their job is to put their parties case in the best possible way in order to "win" they are also more familiar with rules and procedure

Burden and standard of proof
this is not set to any party. as the judge is responsible for brining the evidence to light to the court and the objective once again is only to seek the truth.
in the adversary system:
-every case has a standard to which a case must be proven to
criminal : beyond all reasonable doubt
civil: in the balance of probablitlity
-in every case there is a party that holds the burden of proof. this is the party that initiates the actions of the court case.
criminal: prosecution
civil:platiff


Rules of evidence and procedure
- less reliance of on strict rules of evidence and procedure
- certain rules in adversary system to not apply
- refrence can include character reference
where as in adversary system things are determined by :
- things that can and cannot be admitted in court
-hearsay evidence, opinions and irrelevant evidence is ultimatly what may cover the truth.
-allow for a fair trial
one main differnce is that evidence is given verbally. but in the inquisitorial system evidence can be given in written form so that experts dont always have to come in and verify their reports



omg i mite as well have written a book!!!
you've probably done you sac which in this case this can be used for revision. but i hope i assisted in some sort of way!

ps i use - justice an outcomes as my legal yr 12 text

[hard]

oh thanx for that happy and dusty but i just finished my test yesterday so waiting for the mark, but i managed 3 pages back and front on this question so that's all cool.

thanx again for your help.

[dusty_girl1144]

good to hear


hope u get a  good mark

.xxx.

[xox.happy1.xox]

Full marks!