Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 9 Words: 2705 Downloads: 10 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? An inquisitorial system of criminal justice offers the best system for ensuring that those guilty of committing criminal offences are convicted and that the innocent are acquitted. Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems Defined and Compared In England and Wales and other common law countries such as the United States, criminal proceedings are operated on the basis of what is sometimes referred to as an adversarial system of justice. This differs from the so-called inquisitorial system of justice which is employed in other legal jurisdictions including, in particular many continental European jurisdictions.[1] Briefly, in the adversarial system the sitting magistrates or in more serious cases a jury decides on guilt having heard the opposing defence and prosecution presentations of the case. The defence and prosecution parties are at liberty to deliver their case as they deem appropriate within certain boundaries, and they are free to call and examine witne sses as they see fit. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems" essay for you Create order Not guilty pleas result in what effectively amounts to a contest between the two parties debating the facts of a case and this is the origin of the term adversarial.[2] The adversarial system therefore relies on the skill of the opposing advocates representing their respective partys interests and not on some neutral party, usually the judge, trying to ascertain the truth of the case. Judges in an adversarial system are generally bound to focus their efforts on ensuring the fair play of due process, and fundamental justice. Inter alia, adversarial judges determine, typically when called upon by counsel rather than of their own motion, what evidence is to be admitted when there is a dispute. On the other hand, as stated above, the inquisitorial system is that which is employed on the continent of Europe among most (but not all) systems of civil law (ie. those deriving from the Roman or Napoleonic Codes).[3] The inquisitorial system requires a judge or a group of judges actively to investigate the case before them. An inquisitorial system can therefore be defined as a legal system in which the court or a part of the court is proactively involved in determining the facts of the case. This differs from the adversarial system where, as stated, the function of the court is solely to act as an impartial arbiter and referee between parties concerned. In general terms the inquisitorial system is applicable to questions of criminal procedure as distinct from matters of substantial law; that is to say, an inquisitorial system determines the way in which criminal inquiries and trials are conducted, not the type of crimes which can be prosecuted, or the range of sentences that they may carry. That said, the line between adversarial and inquisitorial systems is to some extent blurred. In some adversarial jurisdictions the trial judge is entitled to participate in the fact finding inquiry by questioning witnesses in certain circumstances. Adversarial rules on the admiss ibility of evidence may also allow the judge to act more like an enquirer than an arbiter of justice. Possible Advantages of the Inquisitorial Process In inquisitorial systems the judge is involved in the investigation and in the preparation of evidence by the police, and he or she is concerned as to how the various parties will ultimately present their case at trial. It is an inquisitorial judge’s role to lead the questioning of witnesses while prosecution and defence parties are entitled to ask supplementary questions. The influence of the judge in the process has the effect of reducing the level of contest between the two opposing parties, something which is a defining characteristic of the adversarial process. It is submitted that allowing an expert neutral party to lead the examination in chief of witnesses would take a lot of the steam and heat and posturing out of the United Kingdom’s current adversarial system and reduce the risk of intimidation and threa t and the risk that one highly gifted advocate could unfairly tilt the balance of the trial. The quality of evidence should improve as a consequence and there would be less argument between advocates in front of the bench, which often distracts the court and wastes time. A key feature of the French inquisitorial system in criminal justice (and in other countries which operate on similar lines) is the function of the juge dinstruction, who can be conceptualised as the investigating magistrate. The juge dinstruction is a judge given the responsibility for conducting investigations into serious crimes or complicated inquiries. The juge dinstruction is independent from the political power as well as the prosecution and such a figure could prove useful in the English system, which has recently been criticised for allowing miscarriages of justice such as that experienced by the so-called Guildford Four, who were released after fifteen years of imprisonment in 1989 due to concerns ov er the integrity of the original police investigation.[4] An inquisitorial juge dinstruction could offer a useful check and balance in the process of investigation and case building which could prevent pregnable or dubious prosecutions being attempted. Contrary to the prosecution, which is, at the trial stage, supervised by the Minister of Justice in an inquisitorial system, the juge dinstruction, as a judge, is independent which insulates him or her from political pressures and corruption to some extent, such as those complained of in the English adversarial system in other notorious cases of miscarriage of justice such as that of the celebrated Birmingham Six.[5] An inquisitorial judge examines suspects and witnesses, and is empowered to order searches or other investigations. The raison d’à ¯Ã†â€™Ã‚ ªtre of the juge dinstruction is the finding of the truth, not the prosecution of a particular person. As such his duty is to look both for incriminatory and exculpatory evidence (à   charge et à   dà ©charge). Both the prosecution and the defence may request the judge to take actions, and the judges decisions can be appealed before a Court of Appeal.[6] Another strength of the inquisitorial system over the adversarial system is that as a consequence of the judicial enquiry and the possibility for judicial proceedings to be cancelled on evidential or procedural grounds during the initial phase, cases in which procedure is suspect or the evidence is weak tend not to proceed to the stage of trial. This eliminates the adversarial practice of plea bargaining (which is popular, for example, in the United States) in strong cases for the prosecution, which are tried in court.[7] Supporters of the adversarial system of criminal justice often argue that the system is fairer than the inquisitional style, due to the fact that it offers less opportunity for state bias against the defendant. However, this is hard to accept given that in adversarial pro secutions are run exclusively by the state. In addition, proponents of adversarial procedure contend that the inquisitorial court systems are overly institutionalised and distant from the typical citizen, given that common law lawyers have a better chance of establishing the truth in forensic environment of the courtroom. It could be argued that common law lawyers are equipped, after the discovery stage, to understand the scope and tenor of consensus and disagreement on the issues at the point of trial in similar fashion to investigative judges in the inquisitorial system. It has also been argued that a trial by a jury of ones peers is likely to be more impartial than a state salaried inquisitor and a panel of his peers. A move away from such a system would cause a seismic shift in many jurisdictions. In the United States, for example, the Constitution enshrines the right to a trial by a jury of peers who are themselves common citizens. Naturally, those in favour of a system o f inquisitorial justice contradict these observations, pointing out that most cases in adversarial systems are in practice resolved by plea bargain and settlement. Most criminal cases in adversarial systems do not reach trial and this can lead to great injustice when the defendant is represented by an overworked or poorly skilled advocate, which is likely to be the case where the defendant cannot afford to pay for the best representation. Moreover, supporters of inquisitorial systems contend that the plea bargain system introduces perversity and idiosyncrasy into adversarial systems, because it prompts the prosecution to bring excessive charges and encourages the defendant to plead guilty to crimes of which they are not guilty. Moreover, those in favour of inquisitorial systems also submit that the power of the judge is controlled by the use of lay assessors and that there is no reason why an experienced panel of judges should necessarily be more susceptible to bias than a jury. In some countries that use an inquisitorial system jury trials are available for some categories of crime but are unpopular given the common belief that any defendant who requests a trial by jury has a case that is so tenuous that they would rather risk pleading their case before lay strangers than experienced and professional judges. Hence, jurors in those countries are very unsympathetic toward defendants.[8] One of the enduring criticisms of the adversarial system is that the ability of a party to obtain an acquittal or less serious conviction may depend more upon the quality of their lawyers than on the salient facts of the case. This gives rise to a fear that adversarial justice offers a better system for rich defendants than poor ones. A cheaper and less able lawyer may fail to influence a jury as to reality of a case, as easily as a highly effective and highly expensive advocate. This perception has been highlighted in high profile cases such as that of OJ Simpson[9] an d Michael Jackson[10] in the United States, where the respective defendants were able to afford to pay for the very finest lawyers that money can buy, and as a consequence avoid prosecution for serious crimes on facts that expert observers have deemed compelling enough to convict â€Å"ordinary† defendants. It can be argued that adversarial systems unfairly boil down to who has the best lawyers and that it is in the interests of lawyers to add complexity and difficulty to an already fraught situation. A quote from famous actor Danny Devito from the 1991 film Other Peoples Money[11] may seem out of place in a paper of this nature but it offers a compelling indictment of the adversarial system, which provided the backdrop for the movie. He said: â€Å"lawyers are like nuclear weapons, you have yours, I have mine, and when we use them they %^%$ everything up.† Another important difference between the inquisitional system and the adversarial system is highlighted when a defendant confesses to a crime. In an adversary system the case proceeds to sentencing. In contrast, in an inquisitional system of criminal justice, a defendant’s confession is just one more fact to be entered into evidence, and such an admission does not allow the prosecution to avoid the responsibility to present a full and compelling case. It is submitted by this commentator that this reduces the risk of false confessions, which are more common than one might think, leading to wrongful convictions. Other differences lie in the rules of evidence applicable in each of the major systems of criminal justice. In recognition of the fact that the adversarial system presumes that evidence must be presented to laymen rather than to professional judges, the rules of evidence are significantly more exacting than in inquisitorial courts. Important evidence such as persuasive or high quality hearsay, may therefore be excluded in the adversarial system and thus effect the outc ome of a trial. Concluding Comments The above commentary has considered key aspects of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems and it is argued that on balance, the inquisitorial system offers a better and more effective mode of governance for criminal justice than the adversarial system currently employed in the United Kingdom and other common law jurisdictions. It is contended that such a reform would also represent a modernisation of the existing system and create a new legal order more in keeping with other twenty first century institutions and practices. Historians can trace the adversarial system of justice right back to the medieval practice of trial by combat, in which certain litigants, in particular women, were allowed a champion to represent them. Need it be said that this is hardly an effective way to determine guilt or innocence, and the ability of a defendant to call upon a mighty champion, or in modern terms, a charismatic, brilliant and expensive lawyer, s hould not be allowed to sway the determination and due process of justice. In 1993 a Royal Commission considered the debate as to the relative strengths and weaknesses of both systems and found that, on balance, England and Wales should resist the move to an inquisitorial system.[12] On the other hand, more recent British Civil Justice reforms initiated by Lord Woolf (ie. the Civil Procedure Rules otherwise known as ‘CPR’) have been prefaced by a case management system under the control of the presiding judge rather than by the opposing lawyers in the case. It is submitted that case management systems tip-toeing closer to the inquisitorial model are also being implemented in the United States of America. Consequently, although the 1993 Royal Commission decided that England and Wales should retain the adversarial system, it seems that inquisitorial practices are slowly creeping into British justice. If these prove successful it is likely that pressure will begin to build for more comprehensive adoption of the inquisitorial model, especially if high profile instances highlighting the weaknesses of the adversarial system continue to occur, and in particular if the general public concern relating to the undue influence of star lawyers who are out of reach of most of the population persists. Jury service is unpopular among the general public and can prove highly disruptive where cases run on from days into weeks. Its removal or reduction may well prove another temptation for public opinion if a proposal to move to an inquisitorial system were to be adopted by the manifesto of one of the major parties and tested at a general election. Although it is admitted that the electorate typically profess to harbour considerable pride in the present adversarial system, some of the arguments and analysis set out in this paper might well persuade a sufficient majority to support such a reform. In closing it is submitted that, although the adversarial sy stem is time honoured and has generally served this country and its overarching framework of justice well, a popular and convincing case could be made out for the adoption of an inquisitorial process on a number of substantive and procedural grounds. THE END WORD COUNT: 2518 (excluding footnotes) BIBLIOGRAPHY Hale et al, Criminology, (2005) Oxford University Press Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, (2003) Willan Publishing Harding, C., Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, (1995) Clarendon Press BBC News Archive: https://news.bbc.co.uk/ (various documents) Wikipedia Online Encyclopaedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six Hodgson, J. (2005) Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure: Deriving Normative Consequences for the Trial, in A. Duff et al, (eds) The Trial on Trial Vol 2: Calling to Account and Judgment Oxford: Hart Publishing. 1 Footnotes [1] For an insightful analysis see: Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, (2003) Willan Publishing. [2] See for comment: Hale et al, Criminology, (2005) Oxford University Press. [3] See: Harding, C., Criminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative Study, (1995) Clarendon Press. [4] See for comment: https://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/19/newsid_2490000/2490039.stm. [5] See for full description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birmingham_Six; and for contemporary comment see: https://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/14/newsid_2543000/2543613.stm. [6] It should be noted that juges dinstructions are appointed only for the most serious crimes (such as murder and rape), and for less serious crimes where such entail a certain level of complexity (such as embezzlement, misuse of public funds, corruption). [7] See for general comment: Pakes, F., Comparative Criminal Justice, (2003) Willan Publishing. [8] A good example is the Japanese sys tem. [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:O._J._Simpson. [10] https://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/13/jackson.trial/. [11] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102609/. [12] See for comment: Hodgson, J. (2005) Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedure: Deriving Normative Consequences for the Trial, in A. Duff et al, (eds) The Trial on Trial Vol 2: Calling to Account and Judgment Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Essay on Justice and Injustice in The Crucible by Arthur...

Justice and Injustice in The Crucible by Arthur Miller In The Crucible, by Arthur Miller, justice and injustice is portrayed through the characters of John Proctor, Elizabeth Proctor and Abigail Williams. It is also shown through the minor characters of Mary Warren and Mercy Lewis, followers of Abigail Williams, and through Danforth and various townspeople. After Abigail Williams and the girls are discovered dancing in the forest by Reverend Parris, there are rumours of witchcraft among them, when Betty Parris and Ruth Putnam are found witched. Once the girls discover this, they become more and more frightened of being accused of witchcraft. Abigail is the first to admit to seeing the devil, and all the other girls join in, so†¦show more content†¦Walcott claimed that after buying a pig from Corey, it died soon after that and from that day to this he cannot keep a pig alive for more than four weeks. Giles Corey, Martha Coreys husband, was later killed for a different reason. He refused to give the name of a man who heard Putnam say he was killing his neighbours for their land. Giles Corey died an unjust death, great stones placed on his chest, pressing him slowly to death. Any outrageous claims were taken in by the courts, and everyone had a reason to accuse another, resulting in many innocent deaths. The main accuser, Abigail Williams, had an ulterior motive to destroy Elizabeth Proctor. Beforehand, Abigail had an affair with Elizabeths husband, John Proctor, and Abigail believed if she removed Elizabeth, she would have John to herself. Most of Abigails allegations were based on false claims, believing the relationship between her and John Proctor to be true love. Because of Abigails twisted plot of sticking a needle in herself to signify Elizabeths familiar spirit pushing it in, and Cheever finding a poppet in the Proctors house, Elizabeth is charged with murder. Proctor realises what Abigail is trying to do, and feels remorse, as he is partly at fault for his relationship with Abigail. Ill not give my wife to vengeance. At the trial, Proctor no longer tried to protect himself and admits to having an affair with Abigail, explainsShow MoreRelatedCrucible Essay Example888 Words   |  4 PagesJustice and The Crucible While justice is meant to be directed with upmost fairness and equality, Arthur Miller’s film The Crucible demonstrates that this does not always succeed, and in many situations the forces of injustices are exposed. From different points of views, justice can be formed or destroyed. In the film The Crucible, Arthur Miller convinces his audience that reason, emotion, and character shows injustice throughout the social hardship in a Puritan community. Justice is one of theRead MoreThe Crucible By Arthur Miller1269 Words   |  6 PagesAt first glance, the playwright Arthur Miller in The Crucible highlights the historical significance of the Salem Witch Trials of 1692, but in fact it is an allegorical expression of his perception of McCarthyism. If the reader has some background information on Arthur Miller’s victimization as a communist, it is evident that the play is a didactic vessel illustrating the flaws of the court system in the 1950’s. The communist allegations were launched at government employees, entertainers and writersRead MoreThe Witch Hunt in The Crucible and During the Time of McCarthyism2059 Words   |  9 PagesThe Themes of The Crucible and Parallels to McCarthyism  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Set in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692, Arthur Millers The Crucible describes the witch hunt that saw harmless people hanged for crimes they did not commit. The Crucible provides an accurate historical account of the witch hunt, but its real achievement lies in the many important issues it deals with. Millers concerns with conscience, guilt and justice develop into significant and thought-provoking themes throughoutRead MoreArthur Miller s The Crucible2214 Words   |  9 Pagesaccomplishments and life’s work. Arthur Miller s The Crucible is a play about justice and injustice, and how our justice system can be easily corrupted. The story revolves around a man named John Proctor, the tragic hero of this story. John Protector is a symbolic character created by Arthur Miller, because he faced the justice system head on. Proctor’s biggest flaw would be his great amounts of pride, which unfortunately led to his own death. In Arthur Millers’ The Crucible, he characterizes John ProctorRead MoreSimilarities Between Apology Speech And The Crucible793 Words   |  4 PagesBoth texts explicate the power of political and social injustices to drive individuals to pursue their own motivations. Composers’ representations of the complex relationship between people and politics are influenced by various moral and social agendas, whereby a portrayal of reality and meaning is inherently subjective. Arthur Miller’s dramatic allegory â€Å"The Crucible† explores the political and social ramifications of the contentious ‘Cold War’ period in American history when the widespread fearRead MoreThe Crucible by Arthur Miller1085 Words   |  5 Pageshave studied and show how the dramatist deals with the implications for both the character and the society. Arthur Miller in ‘The Crucible,’ deals with the internal/external conflicts of protagonist John Proctor, during the witch trials of Salem; showing the effects of â€Å"an individual opposed to the will of the majority.† Through the mass hysteria caused by Abigail, corruption of justice and weakness of man; we see clearly the effects of fear and how Miller’s work translates into his own situationRead MoreAnalysis Of Arthur Miller s The Crucible 961 Words   |  4 Pages Movie paper analysis of The crucible The circumstance brought upon a person can change them greatly. The Crucible edited and rewritten by Arthur Miller, is a movie which takes place in Salem, Massachusetts in 1692. The leading actors are Daniel Day-Lewis as Proctor, Winona Ryder as Abigail, Paul Scofield as Judge Danforth, Joan Allen as Elizabeth, Bruce Davison as Parris, and Rob Campbell as Hale. It was directed by Nicholas Hytner and was Based on the witch hunt which surrounded MassachusettsRead More The American Clock Essay1786 Words   |  8 PagesArthur Miller is a social dramatist who reflects his outlook on the US government, in many of his plays. The Great Depression had a lasting influence on him, which he portrays in â€Å"The American Clock†. Because he was so deeply impacted by the Depression and the government’s role in it, Miller mocks the idealism of the American dream in â€Å"Death of a Salesman† and â€Å"A View from the Bridge†. Due to his unjust condemnation as a Co mmunist during the McCarthy Era he accuses the faulty court system as culpableRead More Arthur Miller Essay1170 Words   |  5 PagesArthur Miller Arthur Miller, in his plays, deals with the injustice of societys moral values and the characters who are vulnerable to its cruelty. A good majority of these plays were very successful and earned numerous awards. According to Brooks Atkinson, a critic for the New York Times, Millers play Death of a Salesman was successful because the play is so simple in style and so inevitable in theme that it scarcely seems like a thing that has been written and acted. For Mr. MillerRead MoreThe Crucible and To Kill a Mockingbird: Compare the ways in which the two authors express THEMES of Power, Authority, Justice and Oppression.1912 Words   |  8 PagesThe Crucible is a play written by Arthur Miller in which he demonstrates the familiarities of the life he lived in the nineteen-fifties. He communicates through his work to the way people are in his society and what people were like in the seventeenth century. However, To Kill a Mockingbird is a prose, written by Harper Lee in the ninetee n-sixties in which she illustrates, how racism was acceptable, and injustice was a problem in which everyone faced in the nineteen-thirties. Both of these literally

Soul Catcher free essay sample

Augustus Cain is the main character in Soul Catcher by Michael White. Cain can be recognized as a good man in many ways during his expeditions as a slave catcher. He is caring and respects all people, specifically Joseph and Rosetta. When with Rosetta, he demonstrates a protective instinct at times. Cain’s knowledge of travel and ways to wander were for the protection and safety of his crew. Through his wise and virtuous decisions, Cain can be portrayed as a good person. Cain showed self-respect and cared about many of the people he met in his life. Though his occupation was slave catching, it did not make him a bad person. Cain only did it because he was good at it. When it came time to interact with a slave, he would not be violent or cruel. The first slave Cain encountered on his journey with Preacher was Joseph. Preacher was very mean and cruel; he even cut the boy’s ear off. We will write a custom essay sample on Soul Catcher or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Cain on the other hand was the opposite. He was very calm when it came to talking with the boy. In the following scene Preacher tortures Joseph but Cain steps in to help, â€Å"The boy just stared at him. Cain released the rope that held the gag, then he reached into his pocket and took out his flask. He unscrewed the top and put it to the boy’s lips, which were swollen and bloody from Preacher’s blows. He swallowed a little, then began coughing† (White 57). This passage exemplifies Cain’s ability to see past the color of someone’s skin. Cain’s care for Rosetta is very prominent towards the end of the novel. In the following scene, Cain comforts Rosetta, â€Å"Of all things he imagined her asking, the one he didn’t expect was the one she asked. ‘Would you hold me? ’ He stared down at her for a moment. Then removed his holster and put it on the bureau, started to lie down on top of the covers† (White 348). This shows Cain’s ability to comfort someone when they truly need it. Though his occupation made him out to be a cruel man, Cain’s actions made up for it. Along with Cain’s ability to care and comfort, he demonstrated a protective instinct over Rosetta. There were many times that she tried to protect him, but Cain looked after her like a mother bear and its cub. Though Rosetta was a runaway and he had to bring her back without being harmed, he did his best to keep her safe because he cared about her. Cain made a bold decision when dealing with the blackbirder’s when they took Rosetta away and he went to go get her back, â€Å"As he went for his gun with his left hand, Cain lunged forward with the hatchet, swinging in a short, vicious stroke, as if he were splitting a piece of ironwood kindling. The hatchet caught the man at the hairline, and the blade settled deep into his blade† (White 294). This shows that Cain would even risk his life for Rosetta. There was one main instance that shows his watchfulness, that being his decision to not return Rosetta. Cain decided to bring her out west to Ohio because it would be safer. He soon decided to send her up to Canada because it was to risky going west. These actions show that Cain wanted to protect the life of Rosetta and her child. Cain defines his genuine character by always finding ways to protect his crew. When they rest during their travels, Cain is the one to come up with the next day’s route to be prepared for any bad encounters. He attempted to avoid main roads to keep them away from other the abolitionists that are after them. When he first encounters the blackbirders, he made a vital decision when it came to their travels. They ask if Cain and his friends would want to ride along with them back to Virginia. Cain knows about the history of the blackbirders and declines their offer even after being pressured by Preacher. Cain was not only looking out for his crew members, but also Rosetta. This goes back to the point of protecting her and caring for her. In the beginning of the novel, Eberly said to Cain, â€Å"’Rosetta. And mind you, Cain, I don’t want so much as a hair on her head to be harmed. Do I make myself clear? ’† (White 18). Though he may have failed at keeping her away from harm, he gave an arm and a leg in the effort he showed. Cain’s awareness was used to his advantage when it came to protecting himself, Rosetta, and especially his crew members. The palpability of Cain’s character his revealed in many ways throughout the story. His carefulness, his defensive instinct over Rosetta, and his knowledgeable ways to look out for his friends all show that Cain was a good person. Though he may have messed up along the way, his intentions were always strong and true.