What is the "adversarial system"?

Question

what is the "adversarial system" of justice; how did it develop and why is our court system based on it rather than alternative systems? (some historical reasons too)

Answer 1

The adversarial system of justice is one where there are two opposing sides (prosecution and defense) who each have their own version of the facts and the "Truth." The judge acts largely as a referee to keep the two sides honest as they contest the facts. The jury is the "nonpartial" decision-maker. It usually is found in countries that derive their justice systems from the common law.

The adversarial system stands in contrast to the inquisitorial system where the judge or judges take(s) a much more active role as investigators and fact-finders. It is usually found in countries whose system derives from civil law (Roman or Napoleonic law). A judge investigates the facts, interviews witnesses, and renders a decision. Juries are not favored in an inquisitorial court, and the disputants are minimally involved in the fact-finding process. The main emphasis in a European (inquisitorial_ court is the search for truth, whereas in an Anglo-American courtroom (adversarial), truth is ancillary to the goal of reaching the fairest resolution of the dispute. It has been suggested that the inquisitorial system, with its goal of finding the truth, is a more just and equitable legal system. However, proponents of the adversary system maintain that the truth is most likely to emerge after all sides of a controversy are vigorously presented. They also point out that the inquisitorial system has its own deficiencies, including abuse and corruption. European judges must assume all roles in a trial, including those of fact finder, evidence gatherer, interrogator, and decision maker. Because of these sometimes conflicting roles, European judges may tend to prejudge a case in an effort to organize and dispose of it. Inquisitorial courts are far less sensitive to individual rights than are adversarial courts, and inquisitorial judges, who are government bureaucrats (rather than part of an independent judiciary), may identify more with the government than with the parties. Critics of the inquisitorial system say that it provides little, if any, check on government excess and invites corruption, bribery, and abuse of power.
The contemporary Anglo-American adversary system has gradually evolved over several hundred years. Early English jury trials were unstructured proceedings in which the judge might act as inquisitor or even prosecutor as well as fact finder. Criminal defendants were not allowed to have counsel, call witnesses, conduct cross-examination, or offer affirmative defenses. All types of evidence were allowed, and juries, although supposedly neutral and passive, were actually highly influenced by the judge's remarks and instructions. In fact, before 1670, jurors could be fined or jailed for refusing to follow a judge's directions.

The late 1600s saw the advent of a true adversarial system in both England and America. Juries took a more neutral stance, and appellate review, previously unavailable, became possible in some cases. By the eighteenth century, juries assumed an even more autonomous position as they began functioning as a restraint on governmental and judicial abuse and corruption. The Framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of the jury trial in a free society by specifically establishing it in the Sixth Amendment as a right in criminal prosecutions.The independent judiciary was somewhat slower in developing. Before the 1800s, English judges were still biased by their ties with the Crown, and U.S. judges were often politically partisan. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835, established the preeminence and independence of the Supreme Court with his opinion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Marbury established "the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution" (Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 1401, 3 L. Ed. 2d 5 [1958]). By the early 1800s, attorneys had risen to prominence as advocates and presenters of evidence. Procedural and evidentiary rules were developed, which turned the focus of litigation away from arguments on minute points of law and toward resolution of disputes. The basic parameters of the United States' modern legal system had been established.

Answer 2

What Is Adversarial

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
What is the "adversarial system"?
what is the "adversarial system" of justice; how did it develop and why is our court system based on it rather than alternative systems? (some historical reasons too)