Adversary Vs Inquisitorial System Essay

The Australian government as do other British colonies, partake in the adversary system which establishes protocol of civil or criminal cases, however, there are other judicial systems the commonwealth governments could establish. This discussion will compare and evaluate the differences of the adversary and the inquisitorial system while associating the weaknesses and strengths of the judges and the jury for the systems.
The adversary system is used commonly by the colonies of Britain *yet many countries such as France and Germany practice inquisitorial*. As seen in Hollywood, the adversary system always has one judge and twelve juries with two parties competing to defeat another. The judge serves the impartial, unbiased role to assess both parties and are professionals of other legal …show more content…
The jury are similar to the adversary system, as the jury are never permitted to consult either the defendant or the judge, instead relying on the documents and evidence provided by the three parties. However, the jury are faced with the same problems by being misguided by charismatic lawyers or biases within the community. Although the judge is partaking an active role with the trial, the judges are now susceptible to having a preference party, enhancing the possibility of allowing evidence to be miss read or ignored.
To summarize, both judicial systems have inconsistencies, as juries can have biases within a case but also be misguided by lawyers. Judges within the adversary system are impartial to both parties but are not allowed to ask questions, while the judge in the inquisitorial are permitted to behave actively but risks the possibility of having biases for a party. However, if there were more judges for the inquisitorial then cases would be