Adversarial and inquisitorial systems are two main legal systems that guide how cases are investigated and decided globally. Both have their pros as well as cons.
What is the difference between adversarial and inquisitorial system? In the adversarial system, two opposing parties present their cases to an impartial judge or jury, whereas in the inquisitorial system, a judge has an active role in the trial.
Key Areas Covered
1. What is an Adversarial System
– Definition, Features
2. What is an Inquisitorial System
– Definition, Features
3. Similarities Between Adversarial and Inquisitorial System
– Outline of Common Features
4. Difference Between Adversarial and Inquisitorial System
– Comparison of Key Differences
5. FAQ: Adversarial and Inquisitorial System
– Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
Key Terms
Adversarial System, Inquisitorial System, Civil Law, Common Law
What is an Adversarial System
The adversarial system is a legal system used in many common law countries. In this system, two opposing sides present their arguments in front of a neutral judge or jury whose duty is to determine the truth. One side is the prosecution, which often represents the government. On the other side is the defense, which represents the accused person.
Each side can present evidence, call witnesses, and ask questions, but they must follow strict legal rules and ethics. The judge or jury listens to both sides and makes a decision based on the evidence and arguments presented. This system is different from the inquisitorial system used in some other countries, where judges take an active role in investigating the case and deciding the outcome.
What is an Inquisitorial System
The inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court plays an active role in investigating the facts of a case. Unlike the adversarial system, judges in the inquisitorial system take the lead in gathering and examining evidence.
This system is commonly used in countries with civil law, like France and Italy, or countries with Islamic legal systems, like Saudi Arabia. It often works alongside a civil code, which serves as the main source of law.
Before a trial, a judge conducts a detailed investigation of the case. This includes examining evidence, hearing witnesses, and sometimes questioning the accused, although the accused is not required to speak or take an oath. In some countries, like Germany, the prosecution also participates in the investigation. In France, the prosecution only gives its recommendations after the investigation. A trial is recommended only if the judge finds enough evidence of guilt.
During the trial, the judge continues to play a key role by questioning witnesses and using the investigation’s findings. While the prosecution and defense can present arguments, they do not cross-examine witnesses. The jury, if present, focuses only on the evidence presented during the trial, not the investigation files.
Similarities Between Adversarial and Inquisitorial System
- Both systems aim to determine the truth of a case.
- They involve the presentation of evidence and arguments by both parties.
- Both have a judge or decision-maker overseeing the process.
- These systems may use legal representation for the accused and prosecution.
- Both may include witness testimonies and cross-examinations.
Difference Between Adversarial and Inquisitorial System
Definition
- Adversarial system is a legal system where two opposing parties present their cases to an impartial judge or jury. Inquisitorial system is a legal system where a judge has an active role in the trial.
Role of the Judge
- In the adversarial system, the judge acts as an impartial referee, while in the inquisitorial system, the judge takes a more active role in investigating the case.
Evidence and Witnesses
- In the adversarial system, parties present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, whereas in the inquisitorial system, the judge investigates and questions witnesses directly.
Legal Representation
- In the adversarial system, both sides have equal legal representation, whereas in the inquisitorial system, the judge may lead the investigation with limited involvement from lawyers.
Countries
- Adversarial system is common in countries with common law systems like the UK and USA, while inquisitorial system is common in civil law countries like France and Germany.
FAQ: Adversarial and Inquisitorial System
1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the inquisitorial system?
The inquisitorial system has advantages, such as judges actively investigating cases, which can help uncover more evidence and focus on finding the truth rather than winning arguments. It may also reduce bias since judges lead the process instead of opposing lawyers. However, it can take longer, and fairness depends on the judge being unbiased. Defendants also have less say in how their case is presented.
2. Is UK adversarial or inquisitorial?
The UK uses an adversarial system, where lawyers for both sides present their case to a judge or jury. The judge or jury remains neutral, deciding the case based on the evidence presented by both parties.
3. Is the United States adversarial or inquisitorial?
The United States uses an adversarial system, where lawyers for the prosecution and defense present their cases to a judge or jury. The judge plays a more passive role, acting as a referee between the two parties rather than actively investigating the case.
4. Is Australia adversarial or inquisitorial?
Australia follows a common law system and has an adversarial system. Here, lawyers for both sides present their case to a judge or jury, who plays a more passive role.
5. Is Russia adversarial or inquisitorial?
Russia mainly uses an inquisitorial system. Here, judges actively investigate and play a major role in the legal process. Russia does not have an adversarial system.
Reference:
1. “Adversarial system.” Wikipedia. Wikipedia Foundation.
2. “Inquisitorial procedure.” Encyclopedia Britannica.
Image Courtesy:
1. “A Balance Scale on a Table” (CC0) via Pexels
Leave a Reply