Running head: JUSTICE SYSTEM 1

Two of the most common justice systems being used by today’s society involve the adversarial

system and the inquisitorial system. The adversarial system, being reliant on English law, brings

cases before the court with two contradicting parties presenting before a neutral panel including a

judge and jury. Adversarial system is mostly implemented by countries of common law

(Asimow, 2015). The inquisitorial system, following either the Napoleonic Code or the Roman

law, aims to gain justice with the combined determination of the involved individuals (the

defense lawyer, prosecutor), and the decision maker (regulator or court). A judge or regulator

can easily perform the function of attaining suitable evidence under the case evaluation and

witness examination (Asimow, 2015). This system is most often applied by European countries.

The purpose of this paper is to bring about the ideas and concepts associated with the

adversarial and inquisitorial systems with their essential regulatory notions. In doing so, it aims

on outlining the differences between the systems involving information of origin, operation, and

the strengths and weaknesses (Grunewald, 2013). The paper is going to reflect on whether the

adversarial system followed in the United States is honest and worthwhile or it requires any

changes (Kim, 2013). A suitable comparison will be made against the inquisitorial system of

Indian criminal law system.

The adversarial system of criminal trials, as stated earlier, originated from the Anglo-

American system and those of its descending associations. The inquisitorial justice system on the

other hand links with Romano Germanic Law System, which can also be recalled as the

continental law system or civil law system (Van Koppen & Penrod, 2012). The adversarial

system supports the strength and supremacy of regulation, which involves an equal treatment in
JUSTICE SYSTEM 2

regulation of all social segments. The inquisitorial system advocates the involvement of an

expert in the criminal system (Van Koppen & Penrod, 2012). There is no room present for public

arguments and idea manifestations.

The adversarial system comprises a regulatory framework that reaches a particular

decision by having each disputing party exhibit its opinions, allowing a balanced decision maker

to derive the evidences and implicate the law; the process is based on the identification of truth.

On the contrary, an inquisitorial system involves an optimum involvement of the court or a part

of the court through a disinterested review (Sevier, 2014). A judge in adversarial system

functions as a referee between the prosecutor and defense having a minor involvement in the

final verdict where in the inquisitorial system he/she is the main fact finder and declarer of the

verdict. Since the judge is responsible to secure justice, legal representation from the accused

side is not considered to be central; the submitted evidence however can be taken into

consideration (Sevier, 2014). In an adversarial system, legal representation from both sides is

important to develop a lawful decision. The concept is that if both sides were to perform

according to the procedure requirements, an honest verdict can be achieved.

The strengths of adversarial system are associated with its fair procedure. It is generally

assumed that it is less prone to manipulation than other criminal law systems, as it does not

provide any chance for the government to side against the defendant. In the United States, the

system appropriately outlines the accountabilities of the prosecuting and defending individuals,

allowing them to represent their stances (Emons & Fluet, 2011). Police plays a critical rule in the

criminal justice system and adversarial investigations provide strength to such administrative

personnel. There is no room for biasness present as the judge and jury are expected to remain

unprejudiced throughout the case evaluation. In an inquisitorial system, there is no lawyer

JUSTICE SYSTEM 3

authority (Emons & Fluet, 2011). For instance, the Indian judgment system process removes all

aspects of an emotionally controlled judgment as the proceedings are strongly observed by a

single individual.

The adversarial system has some weaknesses; often both sides are contesting with one

another which can lead to deception and additional unknown legal strategies. The process may

result in wrongful resolution of a case such involving concepts such as a plea bargain or

settlement (Roach, 2010). The inquisitorial system has a chance of biasness as well. The trials

are lengthy as there is single group estimating and scrutinizing information instead of two

(Roach, 2010). Felons and charged individuals have a limited chance to protect themselves,

particularly if the evidence uncovered is against them.

In the United States, the adversarial system is balanced and fair but there are some

conditions in which it results in disproportionate investment by the individuals in attaining

information. In addition, the reasons to derive information are mainly compelled by the risk

factors for the two contradicting parties (Mosteller, 2009). Comparing this aspect with the

inquisitorial system of India, for instance, the evidences of the parties rely heavily on the loss

from an inaccurate verdict.

The adversarial system as practiced in the United States should be changed on the

aforementioned grounds to produce supportive and honest evidence against the cases. As many

cases in the United States are actually solved by settlement or plea bargain, appropriate trials are

needed to implement strict justice methods.

JUSTICE SYSTEM 4

References

Asimow, M. (2015). Five models of administrative adjudication. American Journal of

Comparative Law, 63(1), 3-31.

Emons, W., & Fluet, C. (2011). Adversarial versus inquisitorial testimony.

Grunewald, R. (2013). Comparing injustices: truth, justice, and the system. Alb. L. Rev., 77,

1139.

Kim, C. (2013). Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures with Information Acquisition. Journal

of Law, Economics, and Organization, ewt012.

Mosteller, R. P. (2009). Failures of the American adversarial system to protect the innocent and

conceptual advantages in the inquisitorial design for investigative fairness.

Roach, K. (2010). Wrongful convictions: Adversarial and inquisitorial themes.

Sevier, J. (2014). The truth-justice tradeoff: Perceptions of decisional accuracy and procedural

justice in adversarial and inquisitorial legal systems. Psychology, Public Policy, and

Law, 20(2), 212.

Van Koppen, P., & Penrod, S. D. (Eds.). (2012). Adversarial versus inquisitorial justice:

Psychological perspectives on criminal justice systems (Vol. 17). Springer Science &

Business Media.