Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Adversarial vs Inquisitorial - Coggle Diagram
Adversarial vs Inquisitorial
Adversarial
JUDGE ROLE: Judge is impartial and is the umpire
ROLE OF THE PARTY:
Pits the prosecution against the accused, who will usually be represented by a lawyer
Role of the legal representation
To be unbiased and impartial and make a judgment based solely on the evidence they are presented with
Standard and burden of proof
Who has the responsibility to prove their case in court.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Basic democratic right to defend oneself is upheld Democratic right to defend oneself is diminished if one cannot afford legal representation
Each party is in control of their own case, which gives individuals access to the legal system
Each party is empowered to discover the truth, acting out of self-interest to present the best case and win
High costs may discourage a person from pursuing legal action, as cases can become a contest over who can spend the most money and employ the most skilled lawyer
Democratic right to defend oneself is diminished if one cannot afford legal representation
Unfavourable evidence may be omitted, leading to the truth not being revealed
Inquisitorial
JUDGE ROLE: Judge takes an active role, looks for evidence
ROLE OF THE PARTY:
Resolving disputes and achieving justice for individuals and society.
Role of the legal representation
Legal representation may assist the judge, however, to find the truth
Standard and burden of proof
Due to the judge’s role, there is no strict burden of proof with any party. Rather, it is the judge’s responsibility to find the truth.
Advantages and Disadvantages
Reduces the Advantage the Wealthier Party May Have Over the Other
It Makes Distortion of Evidence Difficult to Achieve
It Eliminates Bias in the Justice System
It Places the Final Judgement in the Hands of a Single Individual
Decision is Often Made Before the Trial
Fair Outcome Depends on the Investigative Prowess of the Judicial Personnel