Inquisitorial and Adversarial Models Systems of Trial in US Case Paper Example

Justice refers to the proper administration of laws. ln this case, the court systems as well as other areas where the laws of the country apply in the determination the true nature of a case at and use the dictates of the law to identify a guilty and an innocent party. Thus, the complainants and the defendants, in the long run, will be able to appreciate equality in the application of law as truth is being sought. In the paper, case analysis of a conducted case in the United States of America will be made. As a backdrop, the two models of the judicial system will be used to evaluate the best model which could have been applied in the determination of the true nature of the case before trials. The judicial models under evaluation in the decision of the one best fitting to the conduction of the case are adversarial and inquisitorial judicial systems. They represent two distinct ways in the trails are being conducted. In the end, based on the characteristics of both the judicial systems, the one which could lead to the better applicability in the evaluation as well as the assessment of the facts, followed by the determination of the case will be identified. Such an action will also be guided by the weighed strengths of the suitability of both judicial systems. The case being used as a backdrop at hand is the one which involved T - Mobile South, LLC versus the City of Rosewell. Inquisitional judicial system would have been the better option for the determination of the case and provision of justice to the parties involved. It is because of the dictates nature of both the judicial systems is out subsequently, enabling comparison the choice of the one which could have been applied.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

To begin with, the adversarial judicial system is mainly based on the opposing sides of the case acting as enemies to each other, whereas both the complainant and the defendant in the inquisitorial judicial system are treated to a common ground where the judge presides over the happenings and proceedings of the case. In this regard, the opposing sides in the adversarial judicial system compete in their actions in an attempt to convince the presiding judge that they are on the right track and that they are innocent of having committed the crime at hand. They are both given chances to utilize all the machinery they possess in an attempt to convince the judge at hand. They tend to blame their opposite sides of having been the ones who have committed the crime and hence should be treated as the guilty ones in the long run, while the party is making the statements be acquitted as a ramification and the ending of the trial going on. Both the sides do all they can to persuade the hearing jury that they are presenting the facts of the case which should then be used in determining the rulings of the case. The lawyers on both sides of the defendants and the complainants are also offered an opportunity to present the information they have conducting the case at hand. They are given the opportunity to present all the evidence they have, including the issues that they want to present before the jury, as well as the evidence which is bound to support anything the present before the court. Also, they request the witnesses to call to offer their evidence as being the ones with the first-hand information as having observed the happenings during the commission of the stated crime. Therefore, it is mainly being based on the fact that the most convincing side be the one to be freed while the opposing side is convicted as the guilty party in the case at hand.

Besides, the judge is only tasked with presiding over the trial at hand as the opposing sides of the case present themselves as they persuade the court to be true. Finally, the judge, having listened to the submissions of both sides of the case, provides a ruling on the disputed matters of evidence and procedure. At such a state, the judge only asks relevant questions following the submissions, aiming at the provision of the clarification of the issues presented, such as the cross-examination of the witnesses o collect any information which might not have been clearly understood. Also, the judges, having sought verification of the tabled evidence as well as misunderstood issues, makes a ruling as a form of concluding the trial. At such a stage, the judge sums up all the evidence provided and the pieces of evidence and advise the jury on the relevant law to be applied in the determination of the case. In the adversarial system at hand, it is not open for the presiding judge to ask any questions that go beyond the evidence and facts which are provided by both sides of the disputing parties through their lawyers. However, the role of the presiding judge is in a greater extent entirely passive, reduced to only the collection of facts from the opposing parties, followed by the weighing of their nature and finally9 the application of the relevant law as per the factual and evidential findings from the parties. Thus, he/she primarily acts as an impartial; referee in the proceedings of the case.

On the other hand, how the matter could have been conducted basing on the inquisitional judicial system is entirely different. In this regard, as suggested by the name of the system, it is based on the inquiry into the nature of various issues of interest to the presiding judge, leading to the unearthing of the facts and evidence to be weighed and finally used in the provision of a ruling on the case at hand. In this case, the judge is not limited to only hearing the submissions presented by the lawyers of the opposing sides regarding the matter.

However, the judge has the authority to give relevant directions to the layers to address lonely particular issues which the judge considers is of great significance and can lead to the provision of the required information in the run to determine the case. It is different from the case of the adversarial judicial system where the lawyers provide any information which can thus be used by the judge in the ruling of the case. Also, the judge can instruct the lawyers to call on specific witnesses to present their issues as about a particular issue concerning the case. Not many witnesses provided by the parties will be used by the judge in the determination of the case, as in the adversarial judicial system. In the inquisitorial judicial system, as an entitled investigating magistrate, directs the proceedings of the case in court. He/she is thus in control of the information to be presented by both opposing parties, subsequently summing them up based on factual information and deciding on the case. Here, the role of the judge is not to determine the guilty or the innocent party as in the case of the adversarial judicial system. However, the judge is tasked to investigating the truthful information concerning the matter and determining the guilty party in the end. All the information gathered and used by the judge is only for the investigative purpose, to establish their nature in terms of true or false, and in the end, come up with the party which has committed the crime. Hence, the judge is at the center stage in the determination of the case, as an investigative magistrate. The judge is active as opposed to the passive nature of the judge in the adversarial judicial system. Thus owing to the case, at hand, the judge would have conducted the inquiry into the nature of the case presented, where he/she directs the activities undertaken by both parties as the true information congruent to the nature of a given case is being sought, finally leading to the application of the relevant law by the judge in the process of making a decision in pointing out the party to be acquitted and the one to be convicted in the trial. Here, the inquiry conducted by the judge involves the administration of questions to the suspects and witnesses in the run to find answers to specific questions. Also, they would ask the questions in search of the issues surrounding such warrants, alongside the examination of the provided evidence in the run to establish the incriminatory as well as the exculpatory evidence. As the judged conducts his/her business f establishing the true nature of the evidences, there are the defense lawyers representing the complainants and defendants who are keenly following how such activities are being undertaken. Also, the prosecution keeps and a keen eye and depends on the findings of the judge to make a ruling on the case using a determined law.

Also, both the defense lawyers as well as the prosecution are given the room to provide suggestions to the judge about the consideration of specific evidence of seen as being of core importance to the case at hand. Also, they can suggest on the course of action that the judge should take in the establishment of the nature of the provided evidence. However, the eventual responsibility in so far as the line of inquiry is concerned in the hands of the judge. In the end, having gathered the relevant information for the verification of the provided evidence to determine the incriminating and the exculpatory ones, the judge decides the case independently. If the factual information provides evidences against a particular suspect, the case will proceed for trial where there is the use of the adversarial judicial format. If the gathered accurate information can be used to free the suspects, then they are exculpatory.

Furthermore, as opposed to the inquisitive nature of the inquisitorial judicial system having the judge to conduct the preliminary investigations as truth is being sought, the adversarial judicial system does not attempt to establish the truth behind the accusations by any means. The things given weight in the system are the strengths and capabilities of the opposing sides to present enough evidence supporting their claims. Their capacities to convince the judge is of great importance. They provide the evidence favoring their claims and the more accurate they are in their support of the claims, the better the chances for them to win the case at hand. The judge only weighs between the evidence provided by both the complainants and the defendants. Hence, the judge is tasked with holding the balance between the opposing parties without any efforts to take part in the investigations in the run to determine the case. The inquisitorial judicial system seeks to balance between the deficiencies which exist in the case as argued by both sides, while the adversarial system uses the provided evidence to come up with the final decision on the party to get acquitted and the one to be convicted as a guilty one.

Conclusion

Besides, the possibility of the truth getting established in the adversarial system is quite minimal. It is because the respective lawyers representing the clients are given the freedom to choose the evidence which is to be presented in the court. The opposing sides in the adversarial system have the room to verify the evidence they possess as requested by any party. However, they can be configured to suit the requirements of the party providing them, further making it hard to establish the truthfulness of the provided information. It is under the jurisdiction of the party to either reveal or hide the information, depending on the circumstances being faced, yet the other parties cannot establish them by any means. Also, for the case of information asked by the opponents, they might be concealed if they are projected to cause problems to the party presenting them. It is because of the lack of evidence to retrieve them by either the jury or the opponent. Hence, in the adversarial system, the defense can ignore any negative pieces of evidence with the hopes that they may not get to be requested in the long run by...