Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Need help with my writing homework on Adversarial and inquisitorial criminal justice. Write a 1250 word paper answering;
Need help with my writing homework on Adversarial and inquisitorial criminal justice. Write a 1250 word paper answering; There are two systems that are utilized in the administration of criminal justice: 1) the adversarial system (also called accusatorial), and 2) the inquisitorial system. This paper aims to present the difference between the two systems in relation but not limited to the purpose, who are the parties involved, what are role of the parties involved, and the rules involved in the criminal procedure towards the attainment of their aim.Once a crime has been committed, the criminal justice is initiated by the filing of the complaint or criminal action by the victim (called the plaintiff in the complaint) to the police or to the prosecution, against the accused (called the defendant in the complaint). The different steps or procedures undertaken from the filing of the criminal complaint, trial by the court of the case, and to the conviction or non-conviction of the plaintiff is called the criminal procedure. After the complaint has been filed, the next step in the criminal procedure depends on the country of the court where the case was filed. In England and Wales and other common law countries like the United States of America for example, criminal proceedings are sometimes referred to as an adversarial system. 1 In this system, parties to a controversy, develop and present their arguments, gather and submit evidence, call and question witnesses, and control the process within the confines of certain rules and regulations.2
On the other hand, the inquisitorial system which is employed on the continent of Europe among most (but not all) systems of civil law, the conduct of investigating the case, gathering of evidences, and questioning of witnesses is the sole responsibility of the judge of the case.3 While the judge or jury in the adversarial system is a passive recipient of information4, which means that he will only know the facts and arguments of the case during trial, the judge/s play/s much more active roles in the criminal process in the inquisitorial system that include investigating, collecting of evidences, and questioning of witnesses.5
The most striking differences between the two can be found in criminal trials. In the Anglo-American adversary system, the parties to a dispute (plaintiff and defendant), or their advocates (prosecutor and defense counsel), square off against each other and assume roles that are strictly separate and distinct from that of the decision maker that is usually a judge or a jury.6 Each party has to develop and present arguments supported by proofs. In the United States for example, the prosecutor (counsel of the state and in behalf of the plaintiff) will be the first one to present his arguments and evidences to support his arguments. His purpose is usually to prove and convince the judge that the defendant (or the accused) really committed the crime and should be penalized. After which, the defense counsel will also present his arguments and evidences to prove the innocence of his client (the defendant). After the presentation of arguments and evidences by parties, the direct examination and cross-examination follows. The prosecution and the defense counsel will have the opportunity to examine the evidences and witnesses presented by the adverse party to illicit further information and to determine the veracity and truthfulness of the evidences presented.
The adversary process is governed by strict rules of evidence and procedure that allows both sides equal opportunity to argue their cases and to ensure that the decision of the judge is based solely on the evidences presented.7 If both of the parties already rested their case, meaning when direct, redirect, and cross-examinations are over, it is where the function of the judge enters. The judge should decide based from the merits of the case presented before him, whether to convict the defendant-accused or to set him free.
