Hello again.... this is sort of linked to last q. i was wondering whether i could get some feedback on one 10marker q. what can i do to improve? does it answer the question? sorry its quite long
Discuss the extent to which the adversary system achieves one of the elements of an effective legal system.
In your answer, compare two features of the adversary system with the inquisitorial system.The adversary system aims to achieve the entitlement to a fair and unbiased hearing; however, this can be achieved only to a certain extent.
one feature of the adversary system is the role of the judge, who acts as an impartial unbiased umpire, unable to assist either parties. this means that the parties are treated the same thereby upholding justice and fairness. however, in contrast in the inquisitorial system the role of the judge is greatly increased and takes control of the cases, including researching and investigating the case, and creating a 'dossier' of facts and evidence.
the role of the judge in the adversary system achieves having a fair and unbiased trial. this is because the decision maker is left with an independent third party and therefore the decision is respected and confidence is upheld in the system that it is fair. however, because the judge isn’t allowed to assist either parties- even if one party is poorly represented- this may lead to an imbalance of power between the two parties and not achieve an effective fair trial.
furthermore, another weakness is that the role of the judge doesn’t allow their expertise to be fully utilised, impacting on the outcome of the trial as the fighting between parties is in control of the parties. however, a strength of this is that because of the experience of the judge, keeping an impartial position ensures that parties are treated fairly, therefore ensuring a fair trial.
a second feature is the role of the parties, which in the adversary system have a very active role as the instigate and investigate the case. in contrast, the inquisitorial system the parties have a much lesser role and can only respond to the directions of the court.
a second key difference between the systems is that in the adversary system, parties bring and present their own evidence and arguments to the court, choosing what evidence and presenting it in the best possible way. whereas, the inquisitorial system the parties do not present or bring evidence to the court but instead the judge does it in order to find the truth.
the role of the parties helps to a certain extent the fairness of a hearing, this is due to the strength which allows parties in control of their own case which ensures an equal opportunity to win the case, ensuring fairness. however, due to the parties responsible for bringing evidence to courts, not all evidence may emerge therefore resulting in an unfair and unjust outcome of the trial.
a second strength of the adversary system is that the parties have the option to engage in legal representation and present their best possible case, ensuring a level playing field and options for parties for a fair trial. yet, on the other hand, not all parties can afford legal representation and this results that the access to a fair and unbiased trial is limited due to the imbalance in power.
whilst the adversary system does to some extent fulfil the one element of an effective legal system - a fair and unbaits trial - it is not without flaws, and does sometimes outcome in an unfair trial. however, the adversary system, in my opinion, is effective and achieves the principle of a fair trial.
thankyouuuuu!
Home
Help
Search
Login
