compare and contrast adversarial sytem of common law with inquisitorial system of civil law?

Question

adversarial system and inquisitorial system of fact finding mechanism i.e, evidence production

Answer 1

The adversarial sytem is what you have in the US. All of the evidence and witness production is left to the parties. They request what they deem necessary, they take depositions, do document review, subpeonas, even negotiate settlements and plea bargains, and basically decide how they want to proceed. They run it by the judge, who is a neutral decision-maker, and just sees that the law is not violated. The judge does not decide, however, what should be done if none of the parties requests it. In the inquisitorial system, for example, France's, the judge is far more active. The judge interferes every step of the way, and calls witnesses, decides what the charges or claims should be, suggests options, requests particular documents and reasearch from the parties, determines penalties, etc... In criminal law, in particular, a judge may not allow plea bargains, even if the parties are in agreement over it. A case in the adversarial system depends basically on what the parties do with it. There, the judge will not initiate anything. In the inquisitorial system, the judge may not let a case proceed as the parties want it, but as he or she deems necessary for justice.